Prayers - 
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Orders, 4 June and 30 December 2020).
[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Business Before Questions

New Writs

Ordered,
That the Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough Constituency of Hartlepool in the room of Michael Robert Hill, who since his election for the said Borough Constituency has been appointed to the Office of Steward and Bailiff of Her Majesty’s Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham in the County of Buckingham.—(Mr Nicholas Brown.)
Ordered,
That, on the sixth day of April 2021, the Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of Airdrie and Shotts in the room of Neil Charles Gray, who since his election for the said County Constituency has been appointed to the Office of Steward and Bailiff of Her Majesty’s Manor of Northstead in the County of York.—(Owen Thompson.)

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Cabinet Office

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked—

Food and Animal Products: Trade to the EU

Nicholas Fletcher: What steps his Department is taking to ensure the flow of trade of food and animal products to the EU.

Penny Mordaunt: Overall traffic flow at UK ports has now stabilised. The Government have helped exporters to meet new requirements and also worked with EU border control posts to ensure that any issues are quickly resolved.

Nicholas Fletcher: World Feeds Ltd in Thorne and FourFriends Pet Food in Dunsville, both in Don Valley, are having issues importing and exporting pet food products between the UK and the EU. It pains me to know that two businesses in my constituency are seeing their cash flow severely disrupted and their reputation  damaged in the eyes of their European customers and suppliers. Can my right hon. Friend therefore inform the House what her Department is doing further to rectify such issues? What reassurances can she give these two particular businesses?

Penny Mordaunt: I am very sorry to hear that the two businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency are suffering cash-flow issues as a result of, one assumes, goods coming out of customs controls and being then exported back into the EU. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the devolved Administrations have set up the UK Agriculture Market Monitoring Group, which is looking at these issues, but I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the precise issues those companies are facing to see what further we can do in the interim while these things are resolved.

Government Contracts: Small Businesses

Robbie Moore: What steps the Government are taking to increase the opportunities for small businesses to bid for Government contracts.

Julie Marson: What steps the Government are taking to increase the opportunities for small businesses to bid for Government contracts.

Elliot Colburn: What steps the Government are taking to increase the opportunities for small businesses to bid for Government contracts.

David Evennett: What steps the Government are taking to increase the opportunities for small businesses to bid for Government contracts.

Andrew Jones: What steps the Government is taking to increase the opportunities for small businesses to bid for Government contracts.

Julia Lopez: Each year, the Government spend some £290 billion on public procurement. Now that the EU transition period has ended, we aim to make it simpler, quicker and cheaper for small and medium-sized enterprises to bid for Government contracts, as set out in our ambitious procurement Green Paper. We received over 600 responses to that consultation and the submission from the Federation of Small Businesses welcomed our drive to simplify and diversify public procurement.

Robbie Moore: Across Keighley and Ilkley, we have some of the finest small to medium-sized businesses which are passionate about the products they produce and the services they offer. Many are hungry for growth and expansion opportunities—I think of Wyedean Weaving, which is based in the Worth Valley. However, sometimes small businesses feel disadvantaged in comparison to larger businesses when it comes to bidding and being selected for Government contracts. Can my hon. Friend outline what her Department is doing to ensure that there is no disparity in the process and that small businesses have just as much chance of being selected as larger businesses?

Julia Lopez: I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I know that businesses in Keighley will really appreciate what a great champion he is for their interests. We are doing a range of things within our new measures. We want to slash 350-plus regulations and put this into a single uniform framework. We want to do things such as reserve contracts below a certain threshold for SMEs, be able to discriminate by virtue of geography and divide contracts up into smaller lots. There is much more that I can talk to him about if he is interested in this subject.

Julie Marson: I thank my hon. Friend for her response. Alongside wonderful small businesses, does the Cabinet Office also look at venture capital companies to enable Government Departments to have the opportunity to support and benefit from our brilliant, innovative venture businesses?

Julia Lopez: We are looking all the time at how we innovate in public procurement. Some of my hon. Friend’s query might be better addressed by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy or Her Majesty’s Treasury, but we hope that the improvements that we are proposing will open up many more opportunities to SMEs. She might also be interested in existing programmes such as the small business research initiative, which funds organisations to conduct challenge-based R&D to develop products or services that address a specific unmet public sector need.

Elliot Colburn: I thank the Minister for her response. May I invite her to come and visit Carshalton and Wallington post pandemic to meet some of the small and medium-sized businesses that are keen to bid for Government contracts, to hear their concerns about the process and to encourage more to look at opportunities to do so?

Julia Lopez: I would be very happy to do so. My hon. Friend understands that the Government have tremendous buying power, which we think we can use to drive the recovery. We want to use our procurement reforms to open up many more opportunities to SMEs. We are doing that in a range of ways, which I have discussed, but we also have a new social value model, which explicitly allows greater weight to be given to those bids that will help to drive the post-covid economic recovery.

David Evennett: The economic success of our country depends on small and medium-sized businesses and their enterprise and entrepreneurial skills. As the UK seeks to rebuild our economy, does the Minister agree that SMEs should be at the forefront of bidding and securing Government contracts?

Julia Lopez: I completely agree. We want to see a much greater variety of companies deliver contracts from every corner of our country, not just because it benefits local economies and communities, but because we think it helps to diversify our risk, creates a more resilient supplier base and delivers some of our critical priorities.

Andrew Jones: Small businesses are often the source of innovation, particularly in the digital economy. It is often through digital investment that productivity is boosted, so how is my hon. Friend ensuring that those responsible for Government procurement and  implementation have the skills that they need to take advantage of the opportunities that small businesses are creating?

Julia Lopez: My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Along with our procurement reforms, the Cabinet Office has also created a new Central, Digital And Data Office under expert leadership, and through that, we want to improve digital capability and expertise across Government. We also want to create many more opportunities for tech start-ups and other dynamic digital SMEs to bid for Government work, and the CDDO team is closely engaged in how we can do that through the forthcoming procurement Bill.

Civil Service: Location of Jobs

Rachael Maskell: What plans he has to move civil service jobs to York.

Giles Watling: What steps the Government are taking to deliver civil service jobs outside London.

Sarah Atherton: What steps the Government are taking to deliver civil service jobs outside London.

Martin Vickers: What steps the Government are taking to move civil service jobs from London to Lincolnshire.

Michael Gove: As the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, naturally, my heart is always in the north-west of England. However, I am delighted that more civil service jobs will be moving to York. I am also delighted that other Departments have made their own announcements about the relocation of senior positions in our civil service, with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government announcing plans to create a second headquarters in Wolverhampton, the Treasury creating an economic campus in Darlington, alongside the Department for International Trade, and, of course, DIT has established trade and investment hubs in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Cabinet Office has also announced that our second headquarters will be located in Glasgow, with 500 officials to be located there, and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has established a joint headquarters in east Kilbride with 1,000 new roles relocating to Scotland.

Rachael Maskell: First came the promise on the House of Lords, then it was the northern Government hub, then some Cabinet Office jobs, with hopes raised and then dashed in York—one of the worst hit economies from covid-19, yet one of the best connected northern cities, with a brownfield site adjacent to the station and full of people eager to serve. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set out the framework within which his Government determine which locations are recipients of central Government jobs, resources and projects across the piece, so that we can all understand whether transparency or cronyism is driving this Government? And exactly how many jobs will York get?

Michael Gove: Transparency drives everything that the Government do—that and a commitment to levelling up and ensuring that our Union is stronger. That is why we are moving jobs to Glasgow, a beautiful city that, sadly, has not flourished as it might have done under the Scottish Government’s stewardship over the course of the last 14 years. It is also why we are moving jobs to York, the city that the hon. Lady so ably represents alongside my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy). We will be increasing the number of Cabinet Office jobs in York by 50% in the coming months, and it is not just the Cabinet Office; other Government jobs will be coming to York as well, because, as she rightly points out, its transport connectivity, its historical connections and its potential for brownfield renovation all make it a superb site for investment.

Giles Watling: I thank my right hon. Friend for his earlier answer. Moving Government Departments to the provinces is a fantastic initiative, but I implore him not to forget the southern coast. We may be near to London, but we have deprivation and we need the benefit of civil service jobs in our area. I ask him to give us in Clacton serious consideration.

Michael Gove: Thanks to my hon. Friend, I never give Clacton anything other than serious consideration. Clacton, Frinton and the communities that he so ably represents contain talented people who have a contribution to make, and of course we will do everything possible, not necessarily by relocating civil service departments to that part of Essex, but by ensuring that there are opportunities through apprenticeships and the civil service fast stream, to ensure that talented young people in Essex have an opportunity, like him, to serve.

Sarah Atherton: The Minister may know that Hollywood has bought into Wrexham football club, and seeing as our American friends are investing in Wrexham, may I ask the Government to consider doing likewise? We already have the much welcome promise of office relocations to the north of England, so will he make such a commitment to north-east Wales? Will he consider Wrexham, the gateway to Snowdon, with its skilled workforce, business-minded council and easy transport links to Liverpool, Manchester and London, as a candidate for some levelling-up relocation?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is a brilliant advocate for Wrexham, and an economic renaissance is taking place across north Wales from Dolgellau to Wrexham, ably assisted by the brilliant advocacy of new Conservative MPs such as my hon. Friend and her colleagues. The Government want to get behind that, not just by ensuring that our new levelling up fund can provide additional resources for local authorities and businesses in north Wales, but by ensuring that we can have senior decision makers relocated to north Wales—whether that is in Wrexham, Bangor, Prestatyn, Rhyl or other locations that are still to be decided. Of course, the case that she makes for Wrexham is a formidable one, and one that has been heard in the Cabinet Office and, indeed, in No. 10.

Martin Vickers: In the recent bidding process for freeports, the port of Immingham in my constituency came out top, scoring high in every category. May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that moving the civil  servants who oversee the freeport operation to one of the Humber ports—preferably Immingham—would be a good move?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes an important case. Overall responsibility for freeports rests with Her Majesty’s Treasury, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made clear his commitment to ensuring that civil service and other decision-making jobs are relocated effectively across the UK, with the establishment of a second campus in Darlington in Teesside—something that has been done in partnership with the outstanding Mayor of the Tees Valley, Ben Houchen. Of course, there is a concentration of expertise in Humberside, both in north Lincolnshire and the East Riding of Yorkshire, not just in commerce but in renewables, and we will do everything we can to ensure that that expertise is supported by Government.

Census 2021: Covid-19

Steve McCabe: What assessment he has made of the effect of the covid-19 outbreak on the completion of the 2021 census.

Chloe Smith: The Office for National Statistics has assessed the census operation and made adjustments in the light of the pandemic to ensure the safety of the public and census staff. Following census day—which was, of course, Sunday—the ONS remains on target to deliver a high-quality census, and I would reassure and encourage Members that there is still time for those who have not completed the census to do so.

Steve McCabe: With research suggesting that 40% of those aged 75-plus are digitally excluded, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the now largely digital census does not result in a grossly skewed picture affecting long-term service provision for elderly people?

Chloe Smith: Considerable steps have been taken to ensure that that scenario does not come about. While I welcome the ONS’s intention for this to be principally a digital census, because that is generally in line with the times, the hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point about our needing to work together to ensure that nobody is left out from that method. The ONS has taken extensive measures to ensure that that is the case, starting, for example, with the ability to use the telephone call centre to request a paper form and then going on to there being many types of support available for completing the form. Indeed, that happens in other communities where extra support may be required. I would be very happy to write to him with fuller details from the ONS, but I stress that that is already available on the ONS census website. Again, I encourage all right hon. and hon. Members to familiarise themselves with that so that we can all best encourage our constituents to fill in the form in the way that suits them best. That will help us all to have a successful census, with the data that will help us to deliver public services.

Office for Veterans’ Affairs

Fay Jones: What recent steps the Office for Veterans’ Affairs has taken to promote the interests of veterans.

Johnny Mercer: I am incredibly proud of the work of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, which has fundamentally shifted the dial when it comes to looking after our veterans in this country. Whether it is the guaranteed interview scheme, the £10 million mental health care pathway that we established last week, veterans’ railcards or national insurance contribution holidays, we are making slow and irreversible progress in this domain, and we will continue to do so under this Government.

Fay Jones: I am enormously grateful to the Minister for his work with the Secretary of State for Wales to create a veterans’ commissioner for Wales. With so many veterans in and around Brecon, this would recognise the circumstances faced by Welsh veterans where services such as healthcare and education are controlled at a devolved level. Will the Minister confirm that work to create the post is under way at pace and that the postholder will work across both Welsh and UK Governments to ensure that all hurdles for Welsh veterans can be overcome?

Johnny Mercer: I pay huge tribute to my hon. Friend for campaigning so energetically on this issue. Veterans’ commissioners are incredibly important across the country. There is no doubt that in some areas there is excellent veterans’ care, and in other places not so much. What this Government are absolutely committed to is levelling up that experience as a veteran across the UK. We have a veterans’ commissioner in Scotland, and in Northern Ireland for the first time. I am delighted that the Welsh Government are working with us on this. We will deliver it so that the whole United Kingdom becomes the best place in the world in which to be an armed forces veteran.

Ports: New Trading Arrangements

Stephen Morgan: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the adequacy of support for ports adapting to new trading arrangements since the end of the transition period.

Julia Lopez: The port infrastructure fund is granting £200 million of public funding to ports to build facilities required for border controls, which will now come into effect on 1 January 2022, while checks on live animals, low-risk plants and plant products will come in from 1 March next year. The delay to the introduction of controls announced this month allows more time for accreditation in operational testing of those facilities.

Stephen Morgan: Ministers continue to withhold vital funds needed for Portsmouth International Port to build post-Brexit livestock inspection points, yet other inland sites have been fully funded by Government. The absence of this control post threatens trade worth £10 million per year to local authority-controlled ports. Can the Minister tell the House why she is picking winners when it comes to post-Brexit trade and whether she will deliver on the long overdue promise to explore alternative funding?

Julia Lopez: We are not picking winners on the issue of facilities. The port infrastructure fund is an investment that ports do not have to make themselves, and Portsmouth has received £17 million. The hon. Gentleman may interested to know that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is undertaking a review of facilities that will be needed at border control posts, including facilities for live animals, in advance of March next year to see whether the size and scope of the facilities have changed. We will continue to engage with Portsmouth, as I have been. I have had several meetings with representatives there, but with the change in import controls, there will now be more time to deliver and build these facilities, and we hope that this time proves useful.

Trade with the EU: Non-tariff Barriers

Alex Cunningham: What steps he is taking to support businesses subject to non-tariff barriers to trade with the EU.

Mohammad Yasin: What steps he is taking to support businesses subject to non-tariff barriers to trade with the EU.

Jeff Smith: What steps he is taking to support businesses subject to non-tariff barriers to trade with the EU.

Laurence Robertson: What recent progress he has made on securing frictionless access for UK goods to the EU; and if he will make a statement.

Ruth Jones: What steps he is taking to support manufacturers subject to non-tariff barriers to trade with the EU.

Margaret Ferrier: What steps the Government are taking to simplify export procedures to the EU for UK manufacturers.

Penny Mordaunt: Our trade and co-operation agreement with the EU provides for 100% tariff-free and quota-free access to each other’s markets—the first trade agreement in the world to do so. We are working closely with business, including manufacturing, to minimise any potential disruption.

Alex Cunningham: I wrote to the Minister six weeks ago about my constituent Graham Leggett, who said his worst fears had come true, and shared the concerns of a local freight operator who said that Brexit
“is a far bigger disaster than the huge disaster that I predicted.”
Mr Leggett imports materials to sell across the UK and EU, but now finds it near impossible to arrange exports because he does not have a physical operation in the EU. The impact of paperwork—which he has in order—and extra charges has been catastrophic for his business, 60% of which is with the EU, and it appears that his and other businesses will go bust. This is more than a hiccup or teething problem. What message and help does the Minister have for Mr Leggett?

Penny Mordaunt: I am sorry to hear that that business is having ongoing difficulties and that other businesses are too. Frictionless trade would have required regulatory alignment with the EU, which would have undermined our own autonomy in that area and our sovereignty as an independent trading nation. That was not a price that we were prepared to pay. However, we do recognise that these are ongoing difficulties. I would be very happy to look at the individual case. We will be bringing forward further practical measures to address these issues and to provide business with more support.

Mohammad Yasin: Bedfordshire chamber of commerce is doing an excellent job helping businesses in Bedford and Kempston to cope with the significant challenges that the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal has imposed on them. Businesses are in shock, trying to overcome the new and complex operational challenges around rules of origin, unexpected tariffs, VAT implications and the vast swathes of logistical paperwork. The Minister needs to understand that these are not just teething problems. Will she attend a roundtable with Bedfordshire chamber of commerce to hear the real experiences of small and medium-sized enterprises that do not know whether they will survive this disruption?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that offer. I am always happy to meet businesses. My noble Friend Lord Frost and I are looking at ways that we can gather information more swiftly and in real time from businesses that are facing difficulties. I would be very happy to follow up with the hon. Gentleman after this session.

Jeff Smith: Unicorn Grocery in Chorlton tells me that
“the notion that no tariffs means no problem is not the case at all. We still have to deal with agent fees, phytosanitary certificates and organic certificates. The admin fees are the same whether it’s a box of broccoli or a pallet of broccoli.”
These barriers are going to cost Unicorn £170,000 a year. What are the Government going to do to reduce the administrative burden, or support the small businesses that are disproportionately affected?

Penny Mordaunt: We have already provided financial support to compensate sectors that are suffering particular issues. We have also put in place a framework whereby we are able to work through these problems. While we do that, we are obviously looking at what we can do to mitigate and reduce prospective burdens that other businesses might be facing, such as stretching out the timetable by which people would have to comply with other rules and regulations. Again, I would be very happy to look at any specific cases, and that offer is to all Members.

Laurence Robertson: At the last Cabinet Office questions, I mentioned that a lorry from my constituency was unnecessarily detained in France for 12 hours. The Cabinet Office took that up with vigour. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster really went about it; I thank him for that and congratulate him on that work. Is the Minister making assessments of any other lorries that are unnecessarily held up as they try to get their goods across the continent, since of course frictionless trade benefits not just this country but our friends on the continent as well?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my hon. Friend for his thanks and praise to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. We look at and vigorously pursue all cases that Members raise with us to ensure that such businesses are being supported in every way. What this case shows is that, as well as some genuine issues that need to be worked through with our partners in the EU and with member states on a bilateral basis, there are some issues that are purely related to people not understanding the processes or implementing them incorrectly. That has caused a large share of the difficulties that we have seen, but those issues are being resolved. I am very pleased that we were able to help in my hon. Friend’s case.

Ruth Jones: Like many on the Opposition Benches, I believe that Ministers must be held to account for the commitments they made to British businesses and industry during the Brexit negotiations, so can the Minister outline what discussions she has had with the Welsh Government about protecting the businesses and livelihoods in Newport West that are paying the price for this Government’s bad deal?

Penny Mordaunt: I have had a very large number of discussions with the Welsh Government, and also with officials there, with regard to a whole raft of issues related to our leaving the EU, and I will continue to do so in my new role.

Margaret Ferrier: The Road Haulage Association has highlighted that UK exports to the EU will not recover until summer at the earliest due to a shortage of customs agents. The industry estimates that we need 30,000 customs agents for the whole of the UK, and we are presently well short of that target. Will the Minister delineate what steps are currently being taken to meet that target?

Penny Mordaunt: The original assumptions that were made about numbers of people that we would need either in customs or of vets, for example, were overestimated, because having looked at it we now have a much clearer understanding of what is actually required. We have obviously, through securing this agreement, been able to mitigate a lot of those things. A great deal of these things are, as I say, about people not understanding how things should be implemented, so a large part of our work is about ensuring that businesses, agents and others understand how these processes need to be operating. With the problems that genuinely remain, we now have a framework in place where we can work through those things.

Jack Dromey: The Food and Drink Federation reported this week that exports are down by 75%, salmon has collapsed by 98%, and beef is down by 91%. The industry is suffering a total loss of £750 million, and much of that collapse is down to the bundles of red tape introduced by the Government’s Brexit deal. Indeed, the British Meat Processors Association has said that the extra paperwork will cost its members £120 million a year. This is not what British business was promised by the Government. What do the Government now propose to do to help the industry though a crisis not of its own making but which threatens jobs, livelihoods and indeed businesses up and down our country?

Penny Mordaunt: Our management information shows that overall ro-ro freight traffic between the UK and the EU is now back to normal levels for this time of year. That is, in very great part, due to the hard work put in by traders and hauliers to prepare for the end of the transition period and to work through the new things that they are having to do. I would point the hon. Gentleman to the deal that we secured and the framework that we have put in place to agree to trade facilitations going forward, including potential reductions in the frequency of import checks where that is justified. It is in both parties’ interests that we do that. That is how we will be resolving these remaining issues. Our track record since we left the EU shows that, where further support, either financial or in other ways, is needed for sectors, we will do that.

Public Procurement: Value for Money

Karl Turner: What recent steps he has taken to help ensure value for money in public procurement.

Julia Lopez: The overarching principle in all public procurement is to secure the best value for money for the taxpayer, and that principle lies at the heart of our plans in the procurement Green Paper. Simpler procurement procedures will drive increased competition and innovation in public procurement, ultimately saving taxpayers’ money. We are also due to publish version 3 of the “The Outsourcing Playbook” in spring ’21, which includes 11 key policies that help Government and industry to work better together to deliver quality public services and value for money, and our new approach to social value will help to secure wider public benefit, allowing us to contract with firms that deliver more apprenticeships, local growth opportunities and environmental benefits.

Karl Turner: I thank the Minister for her answer, but she will not be surprised to know that taxpayers in east Hull expect Government contracts to be awarded responsibly and fairly, and not with a nod and a wink and a text message between Secretaries of State and pub landlords. Does she want to say something about that to my constituents and perhaps apologise?

Julia Lopez: I think that the particular thing the hon. Gentleman is referring to relates to personal protective equipment, which I know has attracted a lot of interest. I wish to assure the House that although there has been a lot of discussion about the high-priority lane, it was effectively an email inbox that triaged the thousands of suggestions that were coming in for particular contracts. Even if people got through that—90% of people from that process were rejected—the contracts then went through the same eight-stage process. I wish to assure him that there have been no corners cut.

Fleur Anderson: From the start of this pandemic, the Government chose to use a centralised, privatised approach to contact tracing through a handful of large companies, rather than putting local public health teams in charge. While a growing number of councils have now had to establish their own systems on a shoestring, it is a completely different set of affairs for the expensive management consultancies. Last night, we learned that as well as the Government paying Deloitte £323 million for its role in the Test and Trace  system, it is even paid to draft Ministers’ parliamentary answers defending the indefensible. This is a Government who appear even to have outsourced themselves. What will the Minister do to end this practice, or do I need to write to Deloitte to find out?

Julia Lopez: I thank the hon. Lady for highlighting that interesting piece of information. It is not something I am aware of. I appreciate the concerns that have been raised about the use of consultants in relation to some of the work that has been done during the pandemic. We had to surge our capacity very quickly, but I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed about the cost of contracting. We are doing various things to improve the capability and expertise of the civil service. We are looking at secondments for senior civil servants, and we are looking at having our own in-house consulting hub, but I am very happy to look into this idea that consultants are drafting responses for Ministers. It is not something I am aware of.

Fleur Anderson: It surprised some attendees of the recent OECD global anti-corruption and integrity forum that the Government’s anti-corruption champion defended the Government’s handling of public contracts. That role is occupied by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose). As well as being a Conservative MP, he has, of course, a very close family interest in the Government’s pandemic response. Does the Minister agree that the post of anti-corruption champion must be independent from party politics to avoid the growing conflicts of interest within Government?

Lindsay Hoyle: Can I just check that the hon. Lady let the Member know that she was going to mention him?

Fleur Anderson: I did not. I apologise.

Lindsay Hoyle: The apology is not for me; it is more to the Member. The hon. Lady needs to let him know.

Fleur Anderson: I will do so.

Julia Lopez: I thank the hon. Lady for her concerns, but I have no questions or concerns about the integrity of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose).

Grahame Morris: The Minister will be aware of recent mergers and acquisitions of outsourcing companies, some with substantial public contracts worth many millions of pounds, including Mitie, Interserve and, most recently, G4S. Can the Minister tell the House what steps the Cabinet Office is taking to ensure that, in such circumstances, the public interest is protected and does not play second fiddle to the interests of capitalism and greed, as referred to by the Prime Minister a few days ago?

Julia Lopez: The Prime Minister was asserting the importance of capitalism in being able to get the best answers when finding solutions to difficult problems, and I do not think we should doubt his intentions on that particular matter. I am happy to look into any concerns the hon. Gentleman has about the G4S merger, which I have not looked into personally, but I would be happy to do so. Our officials have regular conversations with key outsourcing providers and often have assurances on the work they undertake.

Safety of Local Elections: Covid-19

Bob Blackman: What steps his Department is taking to help ensure that the 2021 local elections can take place safely during the covid-19 outbreak.

Chloe Smith: On 5 February this year, the Government published a delivery plan outlining how the polls will be delivered in a covid-secure way. That is backed by a £32 million funding uplift for returning officers and local authorities to address costs related to covid and by changes to the law made by Parliament to help voters and candidates participate safely in elections.

Bob Blackman: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. It is clearly important that democracy is allowed to flourish and that electors get the chance to vote for their local representatives. Could she provide an update on what actions she is taking to ensure that the count is secure and that postal votes are treated appropriately, particularly during the pandemic?

Chloe Smith: I can, and indeed, an update will be provided to the House today by written ministerial statement, which will give Members full details. The Electoral Commission has produced guidance for the count, and we have worked with it to ensure that that is properly up to date and assists in understanding some of the tensions in the arrangements that will be needed by returning officers to run successful counts. Of course, the need for free and fair elections often comes to the fore of people’s minds at the count, where scrutiny is just as essential as public safety in this case.
I can reassure my hon. Friend that we continue to put out guidance on other elements of the overall election process, including postal votes. I take this opportunity to emphasise that postal votes and other items of paperwork do not need to be quarantined, contrary to some recent media reporting. That has also been made clear by the Electoral Commission and others.

Cat Smith: The trouble is that our democracy is not open to everyone. Millions of voters are still missing from the electoral register, but instead of prioritising that, the Government have chosen to prioritise their discriminatory policy requiring voters to show photo ID—plans that will cost millions of pounds and put up barriers making it more difficult to participate in democracy, and all that while curbing free expression and the right to protest. I should not be surprised at the Minister’s half-hearted approach to being innovative in making this May’s elections accessible. What would she say to a vulnerable person who has voted in person for their entire life but now feels it is unsafe to do so due to this Government’s lack of action?

Chloe Smith: I would encourage any such person to apply for a postal vote, which I will be using at this local election. Many people will prefer to do it that way, and that is absolutely fine, as it has always been. May I call out the hon. Lady for her needless posturing? I would like to say that I am surprised by it, but it is not even new—she does it every single time—and in this case, she has not taken the opportunity to explain to the House why the Labour party does not even practise what it preaches. It still asks for voter ID at its own meetings, and that is because it is a reasonable and sensible policy.

Native Advertising in UK Newspapers:  Departmental Spending

Kenny MacAskill: How much his Department has spent on native advertising in UK newspapers since the end of the transition period.

Martyn Day: How much his Department has spent on native advertising in UK newspapers since the end of the transition period.

Chris Law: How much his Department has spent on native advertising in UK newspapers since the end of the transition period.

Michael Gove: It is very difficult to follow that, Mr Speaker.
We recognise that newspapers are the lifeblood of communities, and we have negotiated an unprecedented partnership with the newspaper industry. Since 1 January, paid advertising has appeared in up to 600 newspapers across the UK, including 60 titles predominantly directed towards ethnic minority communities. We have also supported 105 Scottish titles that reach 3.3 million people—over half the population of Scotland.
Regional and local newspapers received at least 60% of the funding allocated from January to March 2021. All the titles in the press partnership have been selected independently by the media planning and buying agency OmniGov. We publish spending on gov.uk monthly as part of routine Government transparency arrangements, and we regularly review the cost-effectiveness of that spend against audience surveys, focus groups and operational data.

Kenny MacAskill: Food producers and manufacturers in East Lothian are in despair at the additional costs, paperwork and procedures brought about by Brexit, costing orders and threatening jobs. Would the Minister care to pay for an advert in the East Lothian Courier setting out the facts of Brexit, not the fiction that has been promoted in other paid outlets and adverts?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that. Not only would I be happy to pay for an advertisement in the East Lothian Courier; I would be happy to come to Haddington to support Craig Hoy, the excellent Scottish Conservative and Unionist candidate standing in the Scottish parliamentary elections, who will be a strong voice for East Lothian in Holyrood, just as the hon. Gentleman is here in Westminster.

Martyn Day: In Government-sponsored ads on the alleged success of Brexit, the same three or four companies have been highlighted in at least 16 newspapers throughout the UK. Are these the only companies that the Government could actually find that would be willing to discuss the benefits of Brexit?

Michael Gove: No, there is a limitless list, and I could take up the rest of the day by running through all the businesses and all the business people who believe that the Government’s approach is right. One thing I would not be able to do, however, is to find many businesses that would be prepared to endorse the reckless approach  towards a second independence referendum that the Scottish National party is pushing. I cannot think of a single reputable business voice that thinks the priority for Scotland now is constitutional uncertainty and wrenching Scotland out of the partnership for good that is the Union.

Lindsay Hoyle: Let us go to Chris Law. That is not Chris Law. I do not care what anybody says, that is definitely not Chris Law—in which case, I am going to go to spokesperson Stewart Hosie.

Stewart Hosie: In relation to these native adverts regarding the so-called benefits of Brexit, the Advertising Standards Authority says that
“Marketing communications must be obviously identifiable as such”
and that marketers—in this case, the UK Government—
“must make clear that advertorials are marketing communications”.
Some newspapers do say “Ad features sponsored by the UK Government.” Others say, “in conjunction” or “in association”, which is less clear. Many simply say “sponsored” but not who by, and at least one newspaper describes the UK Government—the marketer—as a “contributor”. Why have the Government, as the marketer, chosen to flout the ASA code in this way?

Michael Gove: I have been furnished with no evidence of any flouting of the code. Of course if there are any complaints that have been raised by readers or citizens, we will of course investigate them. But it is the case that the Scottish Government themselves, entirely understandably, devote tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayer money to also furnishing content in newspapers such as The Press and Journal, The Courier and even a newspaper called The National, which I understand has some popularity among some communities in Scotland.

Stewart Hosie: There are many examples of what I am talking about, and the Government do not know them. That the Minister does not know is to his shame. Rule 7.2 of the ASA code makes it clear that:
“Marketing communications by central…government…are subject to the Code”
and rule 3.5 says:
“Marketing communications must not materially mislead by omitting the identity of the marketer.”
So let me ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in terms of the code: why have the UK Government, by omitting their own name, chosen to mislead the public?

Michael Gove: I am very happy to put my own name and that of the UK Government to all of this material, and I am also proud of the contribution that we have made to supporting independent press and media titles across Scotland. It is vital, as we move towards the Holyrood elections, that we have a strong and vital independent press and that newspapers such as the Glasgow Herald, The Press and Journal, the Dundee Courier and others should hold the Scottish Government to account for what has been happening over the last 14 years.

Lindsay Hoyle: Let us go back to Chris Law.

Chris Law: Good morning, Mr Speaker, and I also hope that the same press hold the UK Government to account. Does the Minister not agree that the fact that the UK Government need to buy news stories to promote Brexit, rather than relying on companies to share their success themselves, is a sign that Brexit is an utterly failing project?

Michael Gove: No, I would not say that. I have a great deal of respect and affection for the hon. Member, and that is why the work that we do in advertising in these titles is work that we do in conjunction with the devolved Administrations. We work with them in order to make sure that we are placing content appropriately, not least of course to help people keep safe during the covid pandemic. The Scottish Government of course also devote money themselves to advertising and supporting newspapers—quite right too; that is something that is appropriate at this time. Of course, he and I will disagree on certain policy questions, but on the broad point about keeping our media live and vital, I know that on that at least we are at one.

Topical Questions

Matt Vickers: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Michael Gove: I would like to place on record my thanks to Lord Dunlop—Andrew Dunlop—for the report that he completed into strengthening institutions across our United Kingdom and, in particular, strengthening intergovernmental relations. It is a great report. Many of its recommendations the Government are already implementing. I commend it to the House, and I also commend Lord Dunlop’s selfless work to this House. He is the very model of a public servant.

Rachel Reeves: The ministerial code makes it clear how important the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests is, yet the post has remained unfilled since November last year, when Sir Alex Allan resigned on principle. Transparency International believes that, last year alone, there were a potential nine breaches of the ministerial code—I can share the information with the right hon. Gentleman. So can he advise the House when the unfilled post of Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests will be filled, and what guarantee can he give the House that this time, the Prime Minister will actually listen to their advice?

Michael Gove: The hon. Lady makes an important point. First, may I place on record my thanks to Sir Alex Allan for his contribution both in that role and previously in public service? We are seeking to find someone who is suitably independent, experienced and authoritative for this critical role. I would be delighted to work with the hon. Lady to ensure that the broadest possible range of candidates can be identified, and that whoever is put forward for that role can appropriately be scrutinised by the House to ensure that we can satisfy ourselves about their appropriateness for the role.

Rachel Reeves: It has been four months. A good way to find someone might be to advertise the position and seek a candidate. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman why this is so important. The Independent Adviser on  Ministers’ Interests is responsible for producing the list of Ministers’ financial interests, including those of the Prime Minister. Page 16, paragraph 7.5 of the ministerial code, states that
“a statement covering relevant Ministers’ interests will be published twice yearly”
to avoid any conflicts of interest at the heart of Government. That list was published only once last year, in July, and there has been nothing at all since then. So can the Minister advise the House when that overdue list of Ministers’ financial interests will be published? If he cannot give us that date, should we conclude that the Government are deliberately delaying this to avoid much-needed scrutiny of this Government?

Michael Gove: No, not at all. As I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, it is the case that every Minister complies with all the expectations placed on them, not just by the ministerial code but by the Nolan principles on standards in public life. It is also the case that Ministers are transparent about the areas that she correctly identifies as of public interest.

William Wragg: Does my right hon. Friend still agree with himself in his opposition to covid vaccine certification to attend the pub, as he expressed on Sky News recently?

Michael Gove: Consistency is often the hobgoblin of small minds, but my view on this issue is consistent. A system that relied purely on vaccination would not be appropriate, but what would be right was a system that ensured that we can open up our economy to the maximum extent, that takes account of vaccine status, but also recent test status and potentially antibody status. But the best thing to do is to be guided by scientific and clinical advice and then to subject that advice to proper, rigorous, ethical questioning, rather than taking an instant, off-the-shelf, instinctive approach.

Kate Hollern: It is important that the Government have the right priorities in these difficult times. But what does it say about the Prime Minister’s priorities that, while he is spending up to £200,000 refurbishing his flat, he is telling NHS nurses that they should receive a real-terms pay cut?

Michael Gove: I cannot see the merit in that juxtaposition, but I do see merit in ensuring that the independent advisory body on public sector pay, which governs the NHS, should consider all the evidence. All Members of the House should make clear our solidarity, respect and admiration for those who work on the NHS frontline.

Robbie Moore: I recently met PFF, a fantastic, independent, family-run business in Keighley, which last year diversified and produced personal protective equipment, manufacturing over 360 million aprons for our frontline staff. It is also a proud member of the Made in Britain campaign. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government will do all they can to support British businesses such as PFF which have adapted to help the NHS, and that all procurement will be British-focused where it can be?

Michael Gove: I thank my hon. Friend for reminding us that Yorkshire is the home of ingenuity, enterprise and creativity when it comes to responding to all sorts of crises and challenges. In Keighley, the success of the business that he identifies is one that we should all seek to emulate. He points out that sometimes companies that have been strong in one area can adjust over time to produce other products such as PPE. Some people on the Opposition side of the House have sometimes said, “This company doesn’t have a track record, so there must be something sniffy about its producing PPE.” They seem not to understand that savvy, smart Yorkshire business people can actually adapt their business models to help this country at particular times. It is called the free market, and it exemplifies the best of British and the best of Yorkshire.

Kerry McCarthy: Further to earlier questions about basing civil service jobs in the regions, I am sure the Chancellor recalls that, in his previous Cabinet role, he very clearly committed to basing the new Office for Environmental Protection in Bristol. Would he like to take the opportunity to apologise to the people of Bristol for not delivering on that promise?

Michael Gove: It is the case that the new Office for Environmental Protection will be in Worcester, which is to my mind an equally attractive location for civil servants and for those who will be working in that critical role. The most important thing is that we have good people, making sure that we maintain the highest environmental standards. That is what the OEP will do, but our commitment to making sure that there are high-quality civil service jobs in Bristol remains. Bristol is one of the principal locations outside London at the moment for civil service jobs, but it is only right that other areas, not least in the west midlands and Teesside, as well as Worcester, benefit, because let’s face it, when we have brilliant Mayors such as Ben Houchen in Tees Valley and Andy Street in the west midlands, making a superb case for locations such as Darlington and, indeed, for Wolverhampton, it would be foolish not to pay attention to their brilliant advocacy and to hope—who knows—that they might be re-elected in forthcoming polls.

Martin Vickers: There are many small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency, particularly in the renewable energy sector. I know that the Government are eager to ensure that SMEs have assistance in securing Government contracts. Ahead of the COP26 conference, when there is a particular focus on this sector, is there anything additional that the Government could do to assist those SMEs?

Michael Gove: Yes. I will talk to my right hon. Friend the President for COP26 and ensure that we have a joint roundtable for the companies that my hon. Friend has spoken up for in his constituency and elsewhere, to ensure that the international event taking place in Glasgow, thanks to the UK Government, also benefits people in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire.

Chi Onwurah: Wylam Brewery in my constituency has a fantastic location—our old science museum—and wonderful beers, which I have personally researched.  The EU accounted for half its business last year, but since the Government bungled the EU trade deal, Wylam beers have been stuck in ports or sent back. Official Government advice is to set up a European office, effectively moving jobs from Newcastle to the EU. This week’s Food and Drink Federation figures show that Wylam is not alone in seeing exports collapse, so will the Minister meet me and the brewery to get this sorted and Wylam beers once more enjoyed on the continent?

Michael Gove: I absolutely will. I can think of no better contribution to raising morale, not just in Newcastle but in the European Union, than ensuring that people in the EU can enjoy beer brewed in Newcastle rather than the stuff that they brew elsewhere.

Jamie Wallis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is excellent news to hear of so many Government Departments setting up offices outside London and the south-east? Is he aware of any plans for the UK Government to bring anything to south Wales from which my Bridgend constituency may benefit?

Michael Gove: Bridgend’s position—brilliantly, close to Cardiff but with good transport links to Swansea as well—gives it the perfect opportunity to benefit from the additional investment that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has put into a new trade hub in Cardiff. Of course, it is already the case that Swansea is the home not only to an outstanding university, but to the DVLA. We continually keep under review how we can support civil service relocation, not just to north Wales, as I mentioned earlier, but to south Wales as well, making sure that, not just in Cardiff and Swansea but in communities such as Bridgend, people can benefit.

Chris Elmore: The delay in the implementation of the VI-1 forms has been welcomed by the wine and spirits industry, which has been lobbying on this issue along with wine importers across the UK—including Daniel Lambert, who runs a wine import company in Aberkenfig in my constituency. Will the Minister now work with the industry beyond January next year to find long-term solutions, so that these businesses and those who work in the sector are not negatively impacted following the UK’s leaving the EU?

Michael Gove: The hon. Gentleman has always been a fair-minded and pragmatic Member of this House and a strong advocate for his constituents. I look forward to working with him, Mr Lambert and others in precisely the way that he mentions.

Cherilyn Mackrory: The G7 in Cornwall is fast approaching, and we are very much looking forward to it. Post summit, Cornwall looks for a legacy that will enhance a clean, green future for business. Will my right hon. Friend support me in establishing an ambitious blue growth plan for the port of Falmouth that ensures that Truro and Falmouth, and the whole of Cornwall, can feel long-term economic benefits from the summit?

Michael Gove: It sounds like a brilliant idea. I know that this investment in Falmouth will not cost us a packet; I know that it will be a good investment for the future. Absolutely: we need to make sure that the G7,  which is coming to Cornwall for all the right reasons, leaves a lasting legacy of environmentally sustainable investment. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend for precisely that goal.

Nick Smith: Would the Chancellor describe the enforcement powers of the lobbying registrar as draconian or a bit of a soft landing?

Michael Gove: I have not given the issue much thought lately, but I will look closely at it and write back to the hon. Gentleman.

Steve Double: With the development of the Cornwall spaceport and the Goonhilly earth station, Cornwall is set to become a major hub for the UK space industry. As the Government are looking to relocate Government Departments and agencies around the country, would my right hon. Friend look into moving part of the UK Space Agency to Cornwall?

Michael Gove: I think it is a very good idea. I have to say that Shetland and Sutherland are benefiting from space investment as well as Cornwall. At this stage, I cannot make any firm commitment, but I do think that my hon. Friend has made a strong case for Cornwall.

Stewart McDonald: We know that hostile foreign actors are spending more money and following more sophisticated methods than ever before when it comes to sowing disinformation, including here in the UK. The latest data from both Facebook and Twitter tells us that in particular Iran and Russia are giving the United Kingdom and politics in the UK a lot of attention. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster arrange a briefing for Members of Parliament and political parties, on appropriate terms, with the security services, so that we can all better understand the threat and ensure the integrity of our political discourse and democracy?

Michael Gove: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point; when it comes to many foreign defence and security questions, his is a sane and sensible voice. He is absolutely right that all political parties should be made aware of some of the potential attempts to subvert our democracy. Therefore I look forward to working with my colleagues to make sure that the material that we can share is shared and that everyone is aware of what we need to do to defend our democracy.

Stephen Farry: The calming influence of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is going to be missed in the post-Brexit discussions with the European Union. How does he see long-term sustainable solutions being found around the Northern Ireland protocol in the light of the damage done to trust as a result of the unilateral extensions of the grace periods?

Michael Gove: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The first thing that I would say is that it is important that we make sure that the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland come first. The decision on grace periods was taken in accordance with the freely expressed wishes of commercial operators in Northern Ireland. It   is interesting that Northern Ireland retailers, businesses and so on, without prejudice to their views on Brexit or the protocol, welcomed these pragmatic steps.
I have enormous respect and affection for the hon. Gentleman, but this must be the first time ever, in this House or anywhere else, that I have been described as a calming influence, and I can only say thank you. All sorts of epithets have been flung at me, but to be described in such a way as to suggest that a former occupant of your Chair, Mr Speaker, might have described  me as the equivalent of a parliamentary soothing medicament is perhaps the kindest thing that has ever been said about me.

Lindsay Hoyle: On which basis, I am now suspending the House for two minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
10.35 am
Sitting suspended.

UK Steel Production: Greensill Capital

Lucy Powell: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, if he will make a statement on the future of UK steel production following Greensill Capital’s recent insolvency.

Kwasi Kwarteng: As many right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, it would not necessarily be appropriate for me to comment on commercially sensitive matters at this stage. However, I do appreciate that many Members of this House have expressed concerns to me, individually and in groups, about their constituents working in the steel industry and the families and workers that the industry supports.
Following Greensill Capital entering into administration on 8 March, I and the Department continue to follow developments very closely. As many hon. Members know, I have directly spoken to local management on a number of occasions, and I have also spoken to representatives of the trade unions—as recently, in fact, as yesterday evening. On all those occasions, I have seen a strong and united commitment across management, across the unions and certainly among officials in my Department. I have seen a united commitment to the workforce and our steel industry.

Lucy Powell: The Secretary of State has been dragged here to finally say something, because earlier in the week he had nothing to say. I do not expect him to disclose commercial information, but it is in the commercial interests of UK plc and the customers, suppliers and workers in Rotherham, Stocksbridge, Hartlepool, Scunthorpe, Newport and elsewhere to know whether the Government will step in if Liberty fails to refinance.
We have called for a plan B. It is in our national interests for all options to be on the table. Those options should not be blinkered by ideology, because domestic steelmaking is a cornerstone of our national security and economic prosperity. What is more, Liberty Steel businesses are viable and have made the switch to electric arc furnaces, at great cost. Can the Business Secretary confirm that he is considering all options, from immediate support—if due diligence is met—to public ownership, should the business fall into administration? Does he agree that nationalisation could be the best value-for-money option, especially when we look at British Steel, which the Government spent £500 million on and then sold off on the cheap to the Chinese?
Let us be honest: UK steel and steel communities have been betrayed by this Government, because they have no vision nor any plan. There was not a single mention of steel in the Secretary of State’s plan for growth. There has been very little sector support during covid. The clean steel fund keeps being kicked up the road. There has been no action, despite promises, on the crippling issues of high energy prices and business rates. There is no buy-British guarantee in Government contracts. He just scrapped the industrial strategy. It is no wonder that the investment climate in UK steel is so uncertain. Will he finally take this opportunity to set out his vision and plan the future of UK steel?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I appreciate that questions are getting very long in this House.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think I am the judge of that. The Secretary of State may be new to the Dispatch Box in his new position, but the Opposition are entitled to two minutes, and the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) was within that time. Please, let me make those judgments.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am very happy to defer to you, Mr Speaker; I have huge regard for your position, as I have mentioned many times. With respect to the remarks of the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) about my being dragged back to the Dispatch Box, that is not the case at all. As she knows, I was the Secretary of State who reconstituted the Steel Council on 5 March. That was a top priority for me, because I feel that we have a future for UK steel: the Government’s infrastructure plans will need around 5 million tonnes of steel over the next decade. It is absolutely a commitment of mine, as Secretary of State, to ensure that we have a viable steel industry in this country.

Jamie Wallis: In 1998, 234 jobs were lost at a steel mill in Darlington. In 2001, the Llanwern steelworks closed, with 1,300 jobs gone. In 2003, 95 jobs were lost at the Shotton site in Deeside, and 116 at the Avesta site in Panteg. In 2004, we lost 156 jobs in Scunthorpe and a further 80 in Lincolnshire. In 2006, two closures led to losses of 250 jobs and 40 jobs. Of course, in February 2010, Teesside Cast Products was mothballed, putting 2,400 jobs at risk. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with the Opposition’s abysmal record on steel, the Government are right to discard their failed vision and continue with our proactive approach to helping the sector?

Kwasi Kwarteng: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What devastated the steel industry was, as we know, 13 years of Labour Government. We have made it very clear, with our industrial decarbonisation strategy, published only last week, that we remain committed to a UK steel industry and a decarbonised future, and also to green jobs, particularly in in our levelling-up agenda.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson, who has one minute.

Stephen Flynn: I commend the shadow Minister for securing this urgent question on what is an incredibly important topic, not least for the workforce, who I assume are listening very closely to the Secretary of State. Of course, this issue is important not only to England and Wales but to the people of Scotland. The Dalzell and Clydebridge steelworks are very much at the forefront of my thoughts, and so too are GFG’s wider holdings, such as the Lochaber smelter. I am very conscious of the fact that the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Tourism made a proactive and informed statement to the Scottish Parliament yesterday. I would welcome assurance from the Secretary of State that he will engage in open and transparent dialogue with my colleagues north of the border moving forward. Finally, I would welcome a little bit of clarity from the Secretary of State on quite how far his Government are willing to go in respect of supporting what are, as I understand it, perfectly viable businesses.

Kwasi Kwarteng: The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point, and he will be pleased to learn that I have spoken to representatives of the Scottish Government. We have mutual and very strong interests in the ongoing future of the businesses under the GFG umbrella, and he will know that my door is always open to conversations with him and his counterparts in the Scottish Government to see a way through. As far as specifics of Government intervention, I have said repeatedly that it is not appropriate now, given where we are, for me to disclose anything of that kind, but of course this is an ongoing situation that we are monitoring extremely closely.

Jacob Young: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, for his recent visit to Teesside and for all he is doing to support the industry at this difficult time. Under the last Labour Government, steel production in this country fell by almost 50%, so we should take no lectures from Labour on this. In Redcar, we lost our blast furnace in 2015 with the closure of SSI, but the only reason we have any steel manufacturing left at all is that the Government stepped in and saved British Steel at Lackenby and Skinningrove. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will address key industry concerns such as energy pricing, that he will champion the UK steel charter and that it is our policy to increase domestic steel production, and will he work with me and Ben Houchen on a new electric arc furnace for Redcar?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I commend my hon. Friend, who, only in his brief time as a Member of Parliament, has made a real impact on these discussions and in representing Redcar. I remember a Redcar that was represented by a Liberal Democrat precisely because of the closure of the SSI plant, and I am delighted to see that it is now represented by an excellent Conservative MP.

Sarah Olney: The circumstances surrounding the collapse of Greensill Capital throw up a lot of questions about how decisions are being made regarding the use of public money to guarantee loans to struggling companies during the pandemic. It is important that Parliament has sight of those decisions to properly scrutinise them. On 12 November 2020, in response to a parliamentary question tabled by the shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), a Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Minister said that the list of companies offered coronavirus business interruption loans would be published “in due course”. Does the Secretary of State agree that transparency is essential for effective scrutiny, and will he commit to publishing the list of companies that have received Government-backed loan support without delay?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I will certainly look into the hon. Lady’s request. This is something that has been brought to my attention and I will try to see if we can publish something soon.

Duncan Baker: It is absolutely right to support the steel industry, given the jobs and the simple fact that steel is a fundamental material in our construction industry, and the Government do. I am sure the Secretary of State will note my Environmental Audit Committee inquiry looking at sustainable building materials for the future, such as engineered wood, which  is stronger than steel and embodies carbon. Does he agree that we must explore these avenues alongside supporting existing industries as we transition to a greener economy?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I welcome my hon. Friend’s report and his contribution to the debate around the green industrial revolution. He is absolutely right that, alongside steel, we should consider all forms of innovative and novel materials—advanced materials—that can help us build back greener and more sustainably.

John Spellar: The three fleet solid support ships, at 40,000 tonnes, are equivalent in size to the two aircraft carriers. That is a lot of steel. Only this week, the Ministry of Defence finally conceded that they will be designated as naval vessels, meaning that they will be built in British yards. When the Secretary of State goes back to his office, will he get on to the Defence Secretary and tell him they must also be built with British steel?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I admire and am always impressed by the right hon. Gentleman’s passion for these issues, and I think he is absolutely right. We do have a need for huge amounts of steel in infrastructure in this country. That is why I have said repeatedly that there is a future for the steel industry in the UK.

Shaun Bailey: Obviously, steel is also a crucial part of this Government’s decarbonisation strategy. Can my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents in Oldbury, where a Liberty Steel site is currently based, that he will ensure that Black Country steel is placed at the heart of that decarbonisation strategy and that they will get the support they need from the Government as we go through this difficult time for Liberty Steel Group?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I assure my hon. Friend that we are committed to the steel industry in the UK. That is why, last week, we published the industrial decarbonisation strategy, which I was very pleased to commission as energy Minister. I look forward to speaking to him about the next steps forward for this industry.

Stephen Kinnock: British steelworkers make the best steel that money can buy, but they are having to compete with one hand tied behind their back because electricity costs our steel companies 86% more than in Germany and 62% more than in France, an issue I raised with the Secretary of State when he met steel MPs on 3 February. On 22 February, the Prime Minister told me from the Dispatch Box that
“we must indeed address the discriminatory costs of energy.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 647.]
What progress has the Secretary of State made in addressing this critical issue since our 3 February discussion, and does he think that the Chancellor understands that there can be no post-pandemic recovery without a strong and healthy steel industry?

Kwasi Kwarteng: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is fully aware of the importance of the sector. The hon. Gentleman will know—I think he attended the Steel Council where this issue was raised—that we have commissioned work to see what can be done to redress the balance he alludes to.

Holly Mumby-Croft: I was really pleased to hear the Prime Minister speak yesterday about the opportunities he sees for British steelmakers in major projects such as HS2. Can my right hon. Friend provide more information on that and can he—I know it is difficult—reassure the Liberty Steel workers in Scunthorpe that the Government will do all they can to support them?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I would like to reassure my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was absolutely right to say that we need a huge amount of steel—about 5 million tonnes—over the next decade and that this Government are committed to an ongoing steel industry. As she knows, I have spoken to local management and workforce representatives, and we are doing all we can to look at all options to make sure that this vital piece of infrastructure continues and remains a going concern.

Geraint Davies: We know that David Cameron was an adviser to Greensill Capital, with shareholdings of potentially tens of millions of pounds, and that he made private texts and calls on a number of occasions to the Chancellor to help secure funds for Liberty before Greensill, a high-risk company, went bust, putting thousands of jobs at Liberty Steel at risk. What investigation will BEIS carry out? Will the Secretary of State ensure that in future taxpayers’ money is no longer interfered with by David Cameron and former Conservative Ministers, but is instead invested directly to protect our jobs in British steel and other vital industries?

Kwasi Kwarteng: The hon. Gentleman will know that officials often meet with a range of businesses affected by policy changes—that is part of policy development—but it is always done with proper and due consideration.

Angela Richardson: A key part of our efforts to drive long-term green growth is to support workers in high-carbon sectors such as steel to retrain in new green technologies. Does my right hon. Friend agree that upskilling and retraining workers will be integral to our efforts to level up opportunity right across the country?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am delighted to relate to my hon. Friend that she is absolutely right. We need to retrain people in new green technologies, which is precisely why I, as energy Minister, with my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), set up the green jobs taskforce to look at exactly the requirements and skills we need to drive the green industrial revolution.

Peter Grant: We know that Greensill was a major financer of the Gupta Family Group and, understandably, the questions today have focused on the employment concerns that its workers might have, but we do not know what other businesses may have relied on financing from Greensill and been affected. When does the Secretary of State expect to have that information fully pulled together, and can he undertake, as far as is allowed by commercial confidentiality, to keep Members of Parliament informed of any other businesses that might be at risk as a result of the collapse at Greensill?

Kwasi Kwarteng: The hon. Gentleman makes a legitimate point. The collapse of a company like Greensill has ramifying effects, and I, Ministers and officials in the Department are looking closely at the potential impact.

Nicola Richards: I thank my right hon. Friend for his personal engagement with me on this issue and for acting so quickly. Liberty Steel is a big employer in the Black Country and we have been hit particularly hard by the worst effects of the pandemic. I know that he needs no convincing about the importance of the steel industry in our part of the west midlands, so will he continue to prioritise this issue and work with me to help protect jobs in West Bromwich East?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I would be very happy to work with my hon. Friend to protect jobs. She is doing a great job of representing her constituents. All I would say on this is that we published last week the industrial decarbonisation strategy, which is the first of its kind in the world, and we are absolutely committed to a continuing future for British steel.

Nick Smith: Liberty Steel has a diverse portfolio with a long supply chain. These jobs are often trade-unionised, so they have better pay. Losing them will have a big impact across our country. How will the Secretary of State protect the different elements of this complex company, such as the tubing plant in Tredegar in my Blaenau Gwent constituency, with its loyal and skilled workforce who have kept it going through tough times?

Kwasi Kwarteng: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The company has a range of assets spread across England and Wales, in particular, and we are looking very closely at what specific assets and jobs are necessary. We hope to support the company in its entirety.

Miriam Cates: The funding challenges faced by Liberty are serious, but I have been reassured by meetings with my right hon. Friend, and by the Prime Minister’s response to my question yesterday, that the Government are committed to doing whatever is possible to safeguard jobs and livelihoods in the UK steel industry. However, in the longer term, for steelmaking to thrive in the UK, we must make sure that UK infrastructure projects use environmentally friendly UK steel, providing well-paid jobs and helping to level up. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that future procurement processes will favour British steelmakers such as Speciality Steels in Stocksbridge?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I reassure my hon. Friend, whom I have met on several occasions on precisely this issue, that we remain committed to decarbonised steel and a decarbonised industrial strategy, which I have referred to. That is the basis on which we can have a strong future for the industry.

Sarah Champion: The Secretary of State is well aware that Liberty in Rotherham employs 900 people, along with five times that number in the local supply chain. Our steel goes into defence, energy, aviation—all key strategic industries. In this post-Brexit world, will the Secretary of State please make a commitment that all Government procurement projects using steel  will commit to buying British steel for them, because a full order book is the best way to see a future for steel in this country?

Kwasi Kwarteng: On procurement, I want to relay to the hon. Lady that we have constructed in government a UK Steel and BEIS Procurement Taskforce, which met for the first time only a couple of weeks ago, on 12 March, chaired by my noble Friend Lord Grimstone. We are absolutely committed to seeing what we can do to make sure that we have a strong steel industry in this country that will support the huge infrastructure needs that our country has in the next decade.

John Redwood: I strongly support all the measures that the Government will be taking to ensure that public orders concentrate on UK-made steel, where that is possible, but what further measures can the Secretary of State take to ensure that energy prices are realistic and competitive? If we have very dear energy in this country, it will be a major problem for our steel industry.

Kwasi Kwarteng: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to electricity and energy costs. I am in regular contact with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to see what can be done, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said, to address that problem.

Rupa Huq: The Greensill affair raises the issue not just of Liberty Steel’s refinancing but of ex-Prime Minister David Cameron bending the ear of the now Chancellor, although he was not on the lobbying register. With ex-Minister Eric Pickles overseeing the body regulating current Ministers’ interests, how can the Government ensure transparency on conflicts of interest when they seem to operate a culture of friends with benefits and mates’ rates, with British steel jobs being mere collateral?

Kwasi Kwarteng: Obviously, I completely reject the hon. Lady’s characterisation of what goes on. She will know that officials often meet huge numbers of business people who are affected by policy. That is part of policy development, but it is always done in a transparent, open and proper way.

Julie Marson: The Labour party talks about vision. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Government’s commitment to net zero and their clear vision of being a technology-led innovation superpower, as demonstrated by initiatives such as the Clean Steel Fund, the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, and the Future Fund: Breakthrough, mean that the future of UK steel is positive and in very good hands?

Kwasi Kwarteng: Obviously, I entirely agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. Reflecting on two years as a Minister within the Department, I can tell her that we have had the 10-point plan for the green industrial revolution, the Energy White Paper, the decarbonisation industrial strategy, and, as she says, we have committed hundreds of millions of pounds to making sure that we drive the green industrial revolution. It is a very exciting time to be in Government and I look forward to speaking with her precisely about how we can move forward.

Marion Fellows: With booming metal prices, GFG’s business in Scotland, including Liberty Steel in my Motherwell and Wishaw constituency, remains profitable. Notwithstanding his previous answers, I must press the Secretary of State to echo the promise given by the Scottish Government and do all in his power to protect this profitable industry. Will he do so?

Kwasi Kwarteng: That is a fair question, but the hon. Lady will appreciate that the assets in Scotland relate particularly to aluminium smelting, whereas in England and Wales their job is really focused on the steel industry. None the less, we are looking at all options to see what we can do to sustain these crucial jobs.

Richard Fuller: An acquisition strategy based on supply chain financing arrangements, plus a future receivables derivative scheme, plus an additional month’s cash-flow, and a liberal mix of state guarantees has the characteristics of a potential Ponzi scheme. Has my right hon. Friend been able to ascertain the facts here, or is this an issue for investigation by the Serious Fraud Office?

Kwasi Kwarteng: My hon. Friend raises very serious questions about the business model, which I am not prepared to go into now. What I will say is that, in the first two months of my tenure as Secretary of State, I have pushed forward audit reform as a big issue. A consultation on it is under way. It is issues relating to things such as Greensill capital that show how necessary it is for us to reconsider what we are doing on audit reform and to have the best standards in the world.

Alistair Carmichael: I think we all understand the importance of commercial confidentiality, but, where significant sums of taxpayers’ money are concerned, that cannot not be a barrier to full accountability. The Secretary of State will be aware that the Scottish Government are out for guarantees north of £500 million as a consequence of Greensill’s difficulties. Is that not something for which there really ought to be full explanations?

Kwasi Kwarteng: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. My understanding is that the Scottish Government are very exposed to Greensill’s financial engineering—let me put it that way—and there should be far greater transparency in this regard.

Antony Higginbotham: A strong domestic steel industry is vital to so much of what the Government do, from frigates and submarines to schemes such as HS2. With that in mind, may I ask the Secretary of State whether he will work with colleagues across all of Government—not just with the Treasury, but with the Ministry of Defence and the Transport Department—to ensure that we protect this strategic sovereign capability?

Kwasi Kwarteng: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is crucial that we work across Government to look at procurement and the strategic interests of this country in having a strong steel industry, as he describes, and  in order to work out how best to progress with this  key sector.

Lilian Greenwood: Investing in transport infrastructure such as the full HS2 route and a rolling programme of rail electrification is an excellent way to boost economic recovery and put the UK on the path to net zero, but the Government will be wasting a huge opportunity to safeguard and grow jobs in our steel industry if they do not use public procurement to support it. Will the Secretary of State commit to setting targets for UK steel content in contracts for major public works, and if not, why not?

Kwasi Kwarteng: The hon. Lady will know, as I have said at the Dispatch Box today, that we have a taskforce in BEIS chaired by my noble Friend Lord Grimstone. This is absolutely something that we are looking into, given the huge need we have and the huge demand for steel products in our infrastructure plans.

Theresa Villiers: For all the many reasons set out by Members today, retention of a domestic steel industry is vital for our economy and our security. Will the Secretary of State set out what he is doing to ensure that we have the right regulatory climate for steel to thrive? Will he commit that, if other countries dump steel on world markets that has been inappropriately subsidised, he will take action via our trade policy to introduce anti-dumping measures to protect and support our steel industry?

Kwasi Kwarteng: My right hon. Friend will know that the steel industry in particular is subject to fairly stringent World Trade Organisation rules. She will also know, given the publication of our industrial decarbonisation strategy, that we are rigorously focused on trying to source clean, green steel in order to drive a green industrial revolution and to create the infrastructure projects without which we cannot have any real economic growth.

Charlotte Nichols: Last year, the Government spent £4.8 billion on subsidies for wind power, yet almost no wind farms use UK steel. Those orders would be a boon to the struggling steel industry, but the Department does not even include renewable energy products in its annual list of orders that went to domestic suppliers. In January, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), said that the Government would consider reporting the share of UK steel used in offshore wind projects
“if it is in the public interest.”
Will the Secretary of State accept that it clearly would be in the public interest to name and shame the developers that do not use UK steel, and will he commit to making that change?

Kwasi Kwarteng: The hon. Lady will appreciate that, as part of the offshore wind sector deal, we have explicitly said that 60% of the supply chain should be UK-sourced, and clearly steel is a big part of that supply chain. She will also appreciate that, as Energy Minister, I made it a priority to ensure that in the fourth auction round at the end of this year, these targets will be met. Steel is part of that, and we are absolutely committed to having more UK content in the supply chain for offshore wind.

Richard Holden: Being in the European Union prevented us from prioritising British steel, despite steel and its component parts being strategic resources. Now that we have left, will the Secretary of State prioritise British steel, at least in Government procurement? Will he ensure that steel and its component parts are, where possible, protected and bought from UK producers to prevent us being strategically vulnerable in the future?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend—another Conservative who won a so-called red wall seat. He has done a fantastic job in representing his constituency, particularly on this critical issue. From my answers, he will know that we are committed to making sure that UK steel has a big part to play in the construction and infrastructure plans that we ambitiously set out.

Jonathan Edwards: Tata Steel has reportedly said that it is in active discussions with the British Government about creating a “decarbonised footprint” for the future, especially in Port Talbot. While I welcome that, will the Secretary of State confirm that at the heart of those strategies, the British Government will prioritise maintaining volume of production and jobs in the Welsh steel industry?

Kwasi Kwarteng: The hon. Gentleman will know, but I say in the interests of transparency, that one of my first meetings when I was appointed Secretary of State was with the head of Tata Steel. He will also know that having visited Hinkley Point as Energy Minister I am fully aware of the impact and the contribution that the Tata plant makes to infrastructure. I am sure he will be pleased to hear that this is a top priority of mine. I have made the point many times this morning that our infrastructure plans are absolutely intertwined with a strong domestic steel industry.

Bob Stewart: I am very sorry I was late for the start, Mr Speaker, but I was having a rather shouted conversation with the Chief of the General Staff about the massive cut of 12% in our Army, and particularly the loss of my battalion—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I do not think this has anything to do with the question; I think I would stick to the business question. You do not want to lose your place—come on, Captain Bob.

Bob Stewart: I knew I was going into the Valley of Death. The question, Sir, is this: what percentage of our national steel production, which is a sovereign capability, is affected by the Greensill Capital financial crisis? I am very sorry—I knew I was going to get into trouble.

Lindsay Hoyle: No, I think it will be with the Chief Whip later.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am very pleased to see my right hon. Friend in his place. The key point is that Liberty Steel produces via electric arc furnaces, so it is clean steel. A lot of the steel that we produce relies on older methods. That is why, for me, in terms of our decarbonisation strategy, the future of Liberty Steel is of great importance.

Tan Dhesi: For national security reasons, to tackle the climate crisis, and to build our rail infrastructure, electric vehicles and the like with well-paid unionised jobs, domestic steel production must be a strategic national priority. However, time and again the Government have let down Britain’s steel industry. On their watch, we have seen British Steel collapse, minimal action taken to tackle the huge handicap of high energy prices for our steelmakers, and an over-reliance on imported steel for Government projects. Prior to Brexit, the excuse for the lack of Government intervention was EU state aid rules. What is the excuse now?

Kwasi Kwarteng: There is no “excuse now”. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman lost me rather when he said that the Government have done nothing. We have heard from all around the House the devastating impact of the last Labour Government on the steel industry. I even took a question from an extremely able Conservative Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young), whose seat was represented by a Liberal Democrat, because of the debacle around the closure of SSSI.

Gary Sambrook: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision to re-establish the Steel Council. Does he agree that this is a perfect opportunity for the Government to work in partnership with the industry so that we can create a long-term, sustainable plan to ensure the sector’s transition to a low-carbon future?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has mentioned the Steel Council. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that the Steel Council last met in February 2020. It was a first priority of mine, on becoming Secretary of State, to have another meeting, so we had a meeting on 5 March that went extremely well and is a solid basis for our ongoing dialogue with the sector not only among employers but among union representatives. It is an excellent body and I look forward to working very closely with it in the months and years ahead.

Clive Betts: I am sure the Secretary of State will recognise that Sheffield is the home of steel. Stainless steel was invented in Sheffield, steel made in Sheffield is famous not merely in the UK but throughout the world, and thousands of Sheffielders still work in the steel industry and in related industries as well. So will he give an absolute assurance that the term, “Steel made in Sheffield”, will not be consigned to the history books?

Kwasi Kwarteng: It certainly will not be consigned to the history books. We have an excellent firm in Sheffield, Forgemasters, among others. We all know the great history and traditions that Sheffield embodies and its vital role in the development, and the birth, really, of the steel industry worldwide.

Andrew Griffith: On behalf of manufacturers in my constituency relying on specialist grades of steel, I thank my right hon. Friend for his Department’s work to support UK steel and ask him to keep working with the industry so that we can be leaders in green steel production as we transition to a low-carbon economy.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I commend my hon. Friend’s work in representing COP26 and doing a great job in engaging with businesses on COP26. I assure him that green steel is very much at the front of our minds. It is something that I am very focused on. We have mentioned the Steel Council, and I have also mentioned a number of times the industrial decarbonisation strategy. Green steel is absolutely the way forward, and I look forward to working with him to see how we can make progress in this vitally important area.

Angela Eagle: Can the Secretary of State explain why Greensill—an unregulated shadow bank with close links to the Conservative party—was given access to the coronavirus large business interruption loan scheme, which is backed by 80% taxpayer guarantees? Following its collapse, which puts the future of Liberty Steel and thousands of jobs at risk, will the Minister practise the transparency he has just been talking about and tell the House how many millions of pounds of losses incurred will end up being dumped on the UK taxpayer?

Kwasi Kwarteng: The right hon. Lady will know that I cannot possibly comment on that, because it is part of an ongoing series of discussions. We do not really know the full extent of the impact of Greensill’s collapse on the British economy. We are looking into it very closely and looking at which companies have been affected, but until that further investigation we cannot possibly comment on the extent of the liability.

Felicity Buchan: One of the lessons of the pandemic has been that we need a robust domestic industrial strategy and we cannot be dependent on imports—either of final products or through the supply chain—from China or anywhere else. Does my right hon. Friend agree that steel is an integral component of that industrial strategy—and, with time, decarbonised steel?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I reassure my hon. Friend that the fact that we published the industrial decarbonisation strategy only last week suggests to me, and is a signal to the world of, how seriously we take the strategic impact and necessity of steel, and the net zero commitment.

Dave Doogan: We know that David Cameron used his direct line to contact the Chancellor regarding Greensill’s difficulties. However, when did current UK Government Ministers first become aware of the firm’s difficulties? What actions were taken beyond acting on unsolicited advice from a former Prime Minister? And how will the Government categorically ensure the industry’s future and the thousands of jobs that go with it?

Kwasi Kwarteng: There were a lot of questions there. Briefly, on Greensill, we are continually looking at the potential impact. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that we are committed to a future for the steel industry here in the UK. As hon. and right hon. Members have suggested, the decarbonised nature of that sector—green steel—is absolutely the focus and at the front of our minds as we try to forge a path for the industry in the near future.

Alexander Stafford: I thank the Secretary of State for meeting me to discuss the issues around Liberty Steel and for working with me to save jobs in that great company. He knows as well as I do that good British steel—and, hopefully, Sheffield steel—is an essential component of our ongoing green industrial revolution, from electric cars to wind turbines. Will he assure my constituents that there is a place and a need for the steel industry, and for many, many steel jobs here in South Yorkshire?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am delighted to see my hon. Friend taking part in these critically important proceedings. I know how hard he has worked not only to win his seat and be an excellent, first-rate Member of Parliament, but also in his passion for green energy, renewable technologies and hydrogen; in fact, I am surprised that he did not mention hydrogen in his question. I am delighted to work with him to ensure that we have a future for the steel industry here in the UK.

Rachel Hopkins: Tackling emissions from steel is critical to the fight against climate change, and I have heard the Minister refer to green steel. The clean steel fund was announced in 2019, but steelmakers will not be allocated any funding from the £250 million scheme until 2023. Why will Ministers not bring forward this funding to boost the industry and its green future?

Kwasi Kwarteng: As the hon. Lady knows, we are always looking at ways in which we can promote green steel and industrial decarbonisation. I have alluded many times to the fact that we published the strategy last week, and the steel fund is clearly part of that strategy.

Philip Hollobone: British-made steel, British electric car manufacture and British-backed clean growth: would my right hon. Friend agree that the  prospects for all three are stronger and brighter now that we have left the European Union?

Kwasi Kwarteng: My hon. Friend will remember that I was a Minister in the Department for Exiting the European Union, as I think it was called. I do not want to revisit those debates, but I will say that the future of our industrial strategy, in terms of our green commitments, in terms of the steel commitments and in terms of electric vehicles, is a very bright one indeed.

Jessica Morden: On behalf of all those working at the successful Liberty plant in Newport, may I reiterate how difficult this uncertainty is for the dedicated workforce who make world-class steel, and for their families? May I urge the Secretary of State to keep talking to and meeting virtually with groups of hon. Members, with Liberty plants and with the steel unions over the coming days? As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) said, the UK steel industry is the cornerstone of our national security and our economic prosperity, and it is absolutely crucial to our building back better.

Kwasi Kwarteng: The hon. Lady will know from our bilateral conversations that I am very committed, as Secretary of State, to the future of this sector. I am always happy to meet representatives, experts, workers, representatives in a trade union capacity and local management. I am always open to seeing people and trying to work out pragmatic, positive solutions. This is a really important issue and I am pleased to have engaged with the hon. Lady in the past, as I am sure I will in the future.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am now suspending the House for a few minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Sitting suspended.

Abortion in Northern Ireland

Carla Lockhart: (Urgent Question):  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the provision of abortion in Northern Ireland.

Brandon Lewis: On Monday we made the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2021, and we laid them before Parliament on Tuesday. We have taken that important step because women and girls are still unable to access high-quality abortion and post-abortion care in Northern Ireland, in all the circumstances that they are entitled to under the law made by Parliament in the absence of the Northern Ireland Executive, and reconfirmed in the regulations laid last March.
This is about ensuring compliance with the legal duties that Parliament imposed on me in mid-2019. The legal duties on me as Secretary of State are clear: I must ensure that the recommendations in a specific report by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women are implemented in Northern Ireland. We are not seeking to open the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2020, which were approved by a significant majority in Parliament last year. Those regulations delivered a CEDAW-compliant legal framework, ensuring that the health and safety of women and girls, and clarity and certainty for the healthcare profession, remains paramount, while also remaining sensitive to the circumstances in Northern Ireland.
This is not about new laws; this is about ensuring that the existing law is acted on and delivered. As I am sure many right hon. and hon. Members will agree, at the heart of this matter are women and girls who have been, and continue to be, denied the same rights as women in the rest of the UK. Women and girls are entitled to safe, local healthcare. Indeed, during the pandemic, that has been even more crucial. The law changed more than a year ago, and abortion services should now be available as a healthcare service in Northern Ireland, so that women and girls can safely access local services. This is not a new issue or a surprise for the Executive.
Following the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 receiving Royal Assent and section 9 duties coming into effect, we engaged with all Northern Ireland parties on this matter, and we continue to engage. We have always sought to deliver in a way that respects the devolution settlement, by putting in place a legal framework, and recognising that healthcare is devolved and therefore service provision should be delivered and overseen locally by the Department of Health, as well as by health bodies with the relevant legal powers, policy and operational expertise to do so.
We are disappointed by the continuing failure of the Department of Health and the Executive to commission abortion services that are consistent with the regulations, despite having extensively engaged on this issue for more than a year. I recognise that local interim service provision has been established from April last year, resulting in more than 1,100 procedures being accessed locally. I put on record my thanks to those medical professionals who have done what they can to ensure that women and girls have had some local access to  services in Northern Ireland to date, and to those organisations that have supported that work. Looking ahead, I want to be clear: our strong preference is, and remains, for the Minister of Health and his Department to take responsibility for upholding these rights, commissioning services, and delivering on what the law now clearly allows.

Carla Lockhart: Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. Will the Secretary of State confirm to the House that paragraphs 85 and 86 of the CEDAW report are not legally binding on the United Kingdom, and do not constitute international obligations, as confirmed in the explanatory notes to the 2021 regulations, therefore undermining the whole premise for forcing a change in Northern Ireland’s abortion law in 2019? Can the Secretary of State also confirm that according to the devolution settlement established by the Belfast agreement, access to abortion services is a devolved issue and this action represents a breach of the Belfast agreement? Furthermore, can he confirm that his sole legal basis for intervention in this area is section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019, and that during the passage of that Bill, which was opposed by every Northern Ireland MP who took their seat, it was made clear that the only reason Parliament was interfering in this issue was that there was no sitting Assembly at that time?
Will the Secretary of State explain why he has chosen to take action to use his powers in relation to abortion under section 9 but has failed to act in his duties in relation to the Executive’s failure to introduce payments for victims, under section 10 of the same Act? I know that the Secretary of State shares my support for the Union, but does he not understand that at the heart of the devolution settlement must be a respect for areas that have been determined to be for the devolved authorities? There is still time for him to think again before he takes action that will undermine and further destabilise the devolved institutions. It is time for the Government to recognise the error of their ways, repeal section 9 and restore Northern Ireland’s life-affirming laws.

Brandon Lewis: I recognise the hon. Lady’s consistent position on this, the strength of feeling on this issue and the contributions she has made in previous debates and conversations in this House, and indeed in the conversations she has had with me and with the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker).
It is important to be clear that Parliament stepped in. Parliament placed me under this legal obligation during a period of no functioning devolved Government in Northern Ireland. Even though the Executive and the Assembly have now been in place for more than a year, those legal duties do not fall, and have not fallen, away.
I appreciate the points the hon. Lady made about comparisons with payments to victims, but I should point out that that matter is being progressed by the Executive; it is being delivered on, that scheme will open shortly and victims will be paid. I share the frustration of a number of Members in this House that the Department of Finance and the Executive have not yet allocated the moneys that the Department of Justice needs to move forward with that, and I hope that they will move on with that. However, that scheme is actually being progressed by the Executive, and the victims will be able to apply shortly.
We have been clear, and we have conveyed the message to the Health Minister and his Department throughout, that it is crucial that abortion, as a fundamental healthcare service, is delivered and overseen locally by the Department of Health. That ensures that it is delivered in a sustainable way and becomes embedded in the health and social care system in Northern Ireland in the long term.
I fully appreciate that abortion is an extremely emotive subject, but we must not lose sight of the women and girls in Northern Ireland who are absolutely at the heart of this matter. It is unacceptable that there are women and girls in part of the UK who cannot access these fundamental rights, as they can elsewhere in the UK. Even though the law was changed some 12 months ago, services have not been commissioned yet, and that leaves many women and girls in vulnerable positions.
I have spoken to many women and healthcare professionals in Northern Ireland, and some of their experiences are truly harrowing. Too many women and girls are still having to travel to other parts of the UK—to mainland Great Britain—to access this care. One story was of a much-wanted pregnancy where, sadly, doctors informed the mother that the baby would not survive outside the womb. This woman had to travel to London, without her network of family support, to access healthcare. She described to me a harrowing ordeal, where she was unable to travel back on a flight to her home because of complications and bleeding. She was stranded in London, alone, grieving and in pain. I have been informed of two other women who have attempted suicide in the past year after their flights were cancelled and so they were unable to travel to England for proper care.
The distress and unacceptable circumstances that women and girls continue to face at a time when local access should be readily available, given that the law changed more than a year ago, is unacceptable. It is only right that women and girls in Northern Ireland are able to make individual informed decisions with proper patient care, the provision of information and support from medical professionals, based on their own health and wider circumstances—similar to women and girls living elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We have used every opportunity and avenue to encourage progress and offer our support over the past year. That is why I am so disappointed that we have reached this impasse.
We take this step now to further demonstrate our commitment to ensuring that women and girls can safely access services in Northern Ireland. Our priority is to ensure that the Department of Health takes responsibility for commissioning full services, consistent with the conditions set out in the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2020. That is why we are moving forward in this way. While Parliament considers the regulations, we will continue to engage with the Minister of Health and the Executive to try to find a way forward over the coming weeks before any direction is given.

Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) has done the House a service by raising this issue. Her predecessor gave the House his advice on relationships before he left.
The choice is between compassion and politics. I put it to the Secretary of State that the key point is this: if there is going to be an abortion, it should be legal, safe, early and local. There has been too much delay. Let us put first the interests of women and girls. Going south or coming east is not the answer. Let us get on with it. I hope he understands he will have support from most people in Northern Ireland.

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have to make sure that people are getting access to the right healthcare. It is a legal obligation on us following the Parliament vote, but he is right that we need to make sure people get the right healthcare at the right time and in the right way, and do not have to go through the challenges they face at the moment.

Alex Davies-Jones: I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for raising this important issue. We respect the dearly held convictions of all those who make their case today, but it is important to remember how we reached this point. The existing laws, according to the United Nations, amounted to a “grave and systematic” violation of women’s rights in Northern Ireland. This Parliament had and still has a duty to act to uphold those rights.
The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) gave women in Northern Ireland a right to a safe, local abortion. Parliament made its will clear. No longer will we ask women to use unsafe, unregulated services or to make a heartbreaking journey across the Irish sea to seek an abortion in Britain. That was why the vote on that amendment tabled by my hon. Friend passed overwhelmingly. It was the clear will of this House.
Nineteen months on from that vote, it is extraordinary that women and girls are still being denied safe, local services. We know of more than 100 women who have been denied access to services, leaving them in the desperate situation of travelling alone across the Irish sea or accessing unregulated medicine online. The cycle of inaction must end, so I urge Ministers in Northern Ireland to commission these vital services.
The cross-party letter supporting the Secretary of State’s decision to step in demonstrates the continued strength of feeling across the House. The Government will have our full support when the regulations come before the House for a vote, but I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could provide a date for when that is likely to be. Can he also outline the deadline for when he intends to use the powers contained within the regulations if services have not been commissioned in Northern Ireland? Will it be before the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission takes him to court in May?
As a Welsh Member of Parliament, I fully understand the sensitivities around the devolution settlement. The United Kingdom is at its best when we work together to uphold fundamental rights, and those obligations lie with this Parliament and with the UK Government. Labour has always been clear that where those rights are being denied, there is a moral and legal duty for the Government to act. That is happening now in Northern Ireland. Quality healthcare is a basic human right. The time to act has long come and gone. For the sake of women and girls in Northern Ireland, it is vital that access to these services is commissioned immediately.

Brandon Lewis: The hon. Lady has strongly and powerfully outlined the importance of why we all hope that the Minister of Health in the Northern Ireland Executive will move forward and commission services in a way that is right and appropriate in Northern Ireland, using that local knowledge and expertise and making it, as I said in my opening remarks, sustainable. She has strongly outlined the cross-party support for that, and I know that colleagues on the Government Benches have argued strongly for this in the past as well. The House showed, through the size of the vote last year, a strong will to see this healthcare properly provided, as it rightly should be across the UK so that people can get the support and care that they need close to home and locally. I appreciate her comments and her support for that.

Bob Stewart: May I ask my right hon. Friend how many women and girls, during the pandemic, have had to make that awful journey across to England, Wales or Scotland to have an abortion?

Brandon Lewis: My right hon. Friend highlights the point that the simple answer is too many. To be frank, any single case is one too many, particularly if we think about the circumstances through the pandemic, and I outlined a couple of harrowing examples a few moments ago. Having to travel across to mainland Great Britain without the network of family support that one would normally hope to have when going through this kind of procedure with medical support is just a harrowing thought, and some of the stories are just too emotive to do justice to or to outline here today. We have to ensure that that does not continue and that people can get the support they need close to home, locally in Northern Ireland.

Stella Creasy: I thank the Secretary of State for his efforts to uphold the human rights of all women in the United Kingdom. The Department of Health in Northern Ireland has said that, because this is a new service, it will need additional funding to provide it. Will the Secretary of State confirm that his officials have spoken to the Department of Health and that the funding will be provided, so cost will not be a barrier to ensuring that the women and girls of Northern Ireland can access abortion should they wish to do so?

Brandon Lewis: We are talking to the Department of Health all the time, and we will obviously continue to—I myself have spoken to the Minister of Health consistently. This is something that the Department has the funding for. There is a substantial block grant for the Executive to make their decisions, and we got that £900 million uplift in the spending review just last year. The Department of Finance outlined just a few weeks ago the underspend on last year, so there is no issue with money. At the moment, there is obviously a substantial cost for people who are having to travel from Northern Ireland to mainland Great Britain, in a way that is financially inappropriate, let alone unjustifiable morally and in healthcare terms.
So this is something that the Northern Ireland Executive can provide and that the Department of Health should be moving on with. We will continue to work with them to ensure that that is done, giving them whatever support  we can, but, ultimately, I think we would all much rather see this being provided and worked through by the Department of Health locally in Northern Ireland than this Parliament having to take the action we are taking now.

Nicholas Fletcher: Does the Minister agree that if this House is to help preserve the Union and respect the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, we should refrain from imposing unwanted primary legislation on this part of the UK? After all, poll after poll shows that Northern Irish voters are against the liberalisation of abortion laws.

Brandon Lewis: On this occasion, Parliament stepped in on human rights grounds to ensure that women and girls have equal treatment and equal access to important healthcare services available to women and girls living in other parts of the United Kingdom. We also need to be clear that this is not something we have unilaterally imposed on Northern Ireland. We undertook a public consultation on the regulations in late 2019, which included engagement with, and carefully listening to the views of, the Northern Ireland political parties, medical professionals, women’s groups, civil society, religious organisations, service providers and women with lived experience. It is now crucial that the Department of Health in Northern Ireland takes responsibility for commissioning abortion services in line with the legislative framework that is in place.

Diana R. Johnson: This week, the all-party parliamentary group on sexual and reproductive health, which I co-chair, along with the president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the president of the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare and the chair of the Northern Ireland regional FSRH, wrote a letter supporting the Secretary of State’s actions. Clinicians are frustrated by the continued failure to commission abortion services in Northern Ireland and cannot see any legitimate reason for the delay in commissioning services, which are governed by regulations. What message does the Secretary of State want to send today to clinicians in Northern Ireland?

Brandon Lewis: I appreciate all the right hon. Lady’s comments. There are two clear messages. First, I thank all those medical professionals for the work they have been endeavouring to deliver; as I say, there has been some provision on the ground since April last year, with around 1,100 women and girls looked after. Secondly, however, we recognise the need to ensure that, while Parliament considers these regulations, we work with the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to commission these services in the way that it should have been doing in the first place, rather than our having to take action here in this Parliament.

Caroline Nokes: Yesterday, the Women and Equalities Committee heard from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission on this subject. We heard harrowing stories, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has pointed out, including of women forced to take overnight ferries to the United Kingdom for a termination having to return the same day, because of course, during the pandemic, no hotels were open for them to stay in.  I know he takes this duty seriously and that we are discussing this today because of the failure to commission safe services locally. I thank him for the action he is taking, but also ask that he uses every endeavour to make sure that services are commissioned swiftly, so no more women have to make those journeys.

Brandon Lewis: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I give her my assurance that we will continue to work with the Department of Health to ensure that it commissions these services as quickly as possible. Obviously, the principle of these regulations, which are subject to the affirmative procedure here in the House, means that we will have the power to direct should we need to do so. I hope that, in the next few weeks, while Parliament debates and discusses this issue, the Department of Health, which we stand ready to support and work with, is able to commission these services locally, so that, as she outlined, women and girls in Northern Ireland can get good, appropriate healthcare, in the way that anyone across the United Kingdom can, locally in Northern Ireland. That is what should happen, and I hope that it will, but we must make sure it does.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: We of course want women in Northern Ireland to have access to the best healthcare, but we also believe passionately in protecting the life of the unborn child in Northern Ireland. That view is shared right across our society and is the view of a majority in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Government seek not only to impose abortion regulations on Northern Ireland but to direct the Northern Ireland Executive to implement regulations that they never signed up to. Surely it should be left to local Ministers to decide what services to commission and not for Westminster to impose its view, in breach of the devolution settlement.

Brandon Lewis: As I said earlier, I absolutely recognise the sensitivity and the strength of feeling of people across the House, in some cases, and as the right hon. Gentleman outlines, in Northern Ireland. First of all, this is about ensuring that we follow through on the legal obligations that Parliament put on me. It is also only right that women and girls in Northern Ireland are able to make those individual, informed decisions, with the right medical support and advice provided locally, based on their own health and wider circumstances, in the way that women and girls living elsewhere in the United Kingdom can. I absolutely fervently hope that the Department of Health in Northern Ireland and the Minister for Health in Northern Ireland will take this forward and deal with it locally, so that Parliament does not need to take further action.

Huw Merriman: I thank the Secretary of State not only for taking this action but for using the power of the Dispatch Box to tell harrowing tales of what women and girls have had to suffer. I went to Northern Ireland some years back and heard those same tales, and I vowed that I would do what I could to bring about this change. Equally, I have respect for those across the divide who have a very different view. Does he agree that views are now irrelevant, and that what is relevant is the law? The law is clear and has been  passed by Parliament—a view has been expressed by Parliament. If that were not the case, does he agree that another of those unfortunate victims in Northern Ireland would have to go through the court process and compel him to act?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend has been a powerful voice on this issue, along with other colleagues, over the last period. I know that a number of people appreciate the support he has given and everything he has done to make sure that women and girls in Northern Ireland get the right support and care. He is absolutely right: we really should not be in a position where people have to bring this matter to court individually in order to get the right healthcare. Parliament has put a legal obligation on us. There is now a legal requirement and a legal duty. I hope the Department of Health in Northern Ireland will take this forward itself, but we obviously have a legal and moral obligation in this House to follow through on the legal obligations that were put in place in 2019.

Layla Moran: I thank the Secretary of State for his robust defence of the human rights of women in Northern Ireland. I wonder whether he is aware of the troubling reports of women being wilfully misled by anti-abortion organisations, which encourage them towards anti-choice clinics, disguising themselves as abortion services. These clinics then string the women along until they are over 10 weeks, so ensuring that they cannot access early medical abortions in Northern Ireland.
That is happening because of a failure to commission services as there is not a clear pathway to abortion services. Have the Government made an assessment of how many women have been prevented from accessing early medical abortion services because they are being directed to these clinics?

Brandon Lewis: The hon. Lady makes a very important point. Even putting aside the legal and moral obligations of this House to ensure that the right healthcare is being provided in Northern Ireland, doing nothing, as some people may make a case for—I understand the sensitivities behind this—does not actually mean that nothing is happening. Doing nothing actually means that people are at risk of the kind of problems and misleading guidance and advice that the hon. Lady has rightly outlined.
There is also a risk that people turn to unofficial, shall we say, healthcare—inappropriate healthcare—that does not give them the right sort of healthcare. Actions and procedures then end up being performed illegally and in back-door areas in a way that means that people are not getting the right sort of support and healthcare. That leads to other complications and problems.
As the hon. Lady has said and others have referred to, as I did earlier, there are too many harrowing examples of people who have not been able to get access to healthcare in the right way. Whatever our views on  these matters and the sensitivities, we need to ensure that women and girls in Northern Ireland, like those in the rest of the United Kingdom, have access to good quality advice and good quality, proper, official well advised healthcare that takes into account their own individual needs.

John Hayes: Given what the Secretary of State has just said about people being misled, will he be clear that the assertion that Northern Ireland is violating human rights obligations is simply untrue? CEDAW reports are not binding in law and the CEDAW convention, which is, does not even mention abortion.
Surely the Secretary of State must know that the imposition of this measure, against the express democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, is not only unjust and unwelcome, but rooted in an entirely invalid assertion?

Brandon Lewis: I say to my right hon. Friend that this is a matter of domestic law; I have been clear about that. It is about the legal obligation taken forward from this House in 2019. It requires us and the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that they have an offer and services that are CEDAW-compliant. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that the implication and obligation of that are in domestic law; it is not an international law issue. But it is a domestic law.
These regulations are not actually about opening up the abortion laws themselves; they are about applying the laws in place that mean that Northern Ireland women and girls will have access to care in the same way as they would elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Hannah Bardell: Polling by Amnesty and others has consistently shown that Northern Ireland is pro-choice. I have had the great privilege of meeting Sarah Ewart and Denise Phelan—two women who have campaigned tirelessly for abortion rights and human rights in Northern Ireland. They both suffered the most traumatic and devastating of losses: fatal foetal abnormalities that meant that they needed an abortion. But they could not even access the most basic of healthcare in Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State make sure that their suffering and trauma and their bravery in speaking out and campaigning are not in vain? Does he agree that wherever in the world a woman is, she should have the right to choose and to have her dignity and human rights upheld?

Brandon Lewis: The short answer is absolutely yes; the hon. Lady is absolutely right. I would go further. She has outlined a couple of specific cases. I did not name people, for a particular reason that she will appreciate. This is not a criticism of what she said at all. She is absolutely right and I know the individuals concerned. It is not just the poor access to healthcare and the harrowing examples that I outlined—the hon. Lady gave an example of a couple of people who have been through dreadful situations—but the bravery of those women in having the strength to stand up and highlight the issues so that others can understand. I also fully understand the abuse that they have had to withstand for speaking out and being clear about their own experience. That is unacceptable and we should all be calling it out.

Edward Leigh: Will the Secretary of State be honest and open with the House? He quotes section 9 of the 2019 Act. This House took the fact that the Assembly was not sitting as an excuse to impose its views on Northern Ireland. The Assembly is now sitting. The abortion industry talks about the right to choose; what about the right to choose of the people of Northern Ireland? What would happen if  they tried to impose their views on us? The fact of the matter is that Northern Ireland can run its own Government as long as they keep doing things that we do not disagree with. This is not democracy. Whatever our views on abortion, the Secretary of State is putting the Union at risk. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland believe in the sanctity of life. They oppose abortion. They have their own devolved Administration. They should be allowed to run their own affairs.

Brandon Lewis: My right hon. Friend makes a strong point about devolution. It is absolutely right that the devolved Administrations have the ability to move on and deliver on their own affairs, and I absolutely hope that the Northern Ireland Department of Health will do that. This is not about us stepping in on a devolved matter, although I appreciate that others have made that case; it is about us ensuring compliance with the legal duties that Parliament imposed on us in mid-2019. Those duties are such that I am under an obligation to ensure that all the recommendations in the CEDAW report are implemented in Northern Ireland. The fact that the Northern Ireland Executive are back—that is a very good thing, and I hope they will take this forward; of course, they have been able to take it forward themselves with any amendments they like—does not remove the legal obligation on the Government to take forward what was voted on in this House in 2019.

Stephen Farry: As a Northern Ireland MP, I strongly support what the Secretary of State is doing, and I stress that there is large-scale support in Northern Ireland for these actions. It is simply not tenable to have a right on paper but not in practice, and for different reproductive rights to exist across the UK. Will he give a timeframe in which he may potentially use these powers, and an assurance that he will not allow the Northern Ireland Executive to drag this issue out indefinitely?

Brandon Lewis: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see that our laying these regulations now is a clear indication that we are not in a position where we think it is appropriate for this to be dragged on much further. Obviously, there is a process through this House; the regulations are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, so the House will discuss and debate them. I passionately hope that, in the next few weeks, while this House is doing that, there is still time for the Department of Health and the Northern Ireland Executive to take this on board and take it forward in a way that is right and appropriate for them, with the expertise that they have locally, and to do so driven by the Department of Health in Northern Ireland. However, we are taking this power as a clear indication that that cannot go on indefinitely and they do need to take action.

Fiona Bruce: Is it not true that this legislation was based on an incorrect assumption that Northern Ireland was in violation of human rights obligations? Repeated assertions were made—they have been made even today in this place—that this is a matter of human rights law. Those were based originally, as I understand it, on the work of a small working group of CEDAW. May I ask the Secretary of State again: is it not correct that that CEDAW report is not binding in international law and that this Parliament  chose to treat certain assertions in it as binding? Surely, that is no answer to the unwarranted and unwanted imposition of this legislation on Northern Ireland’s people now that their Assembly is back up and running.

Brandon Lewis: As I have outlined, these regulations are about the UK Government fulfilling our legal obligations imposed by Parliament in 2019, and it is about ensuring that women and girls in Northern Ireland have access to the same quality and kind of healthcare that they would have anywhere else in the United Kingdom. As Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, it is right that people in Northern Ireland have access to healthcare in the same way they would if they were on mainland Great Britain.

Gregory Campbell: The Secretary of State on a number of occasions has talked about healthcare for women and girls, and we concur—it is important to look after expectant mothers and young pregnant woman—but the one thing he has not mentioned and the one person he has not mentioned is the right of the unborn child. If Parliament is seeking to overlook the devolutionary settlement in that regard and he is seeking to do that, who will look after the rights of the unborn child?

Brandon Lewis: The hon. Gentleman has outlined the strength of feeling, and as I said earlier, I appreciate that there are strong feelings on this issue. It is a sensitive issue across the United Kingdom—we refer to Northern Ireland, but I know that people have strong views on this across the House and across the country. He has also outlined, I would argue, why it is right that we ensure and the Department of Health ensures that women and girls have access to proper quality, qualified healthcare and support in Northern Ireland, as they would elsewhere in the United Kingdom, to ensure that they are not being treated unofficially, potentially by people who are not properly qualified to assess the genuine individual needs of any given case. A medical professional is, and that is why it is right that this is done in the way that it is elsewhere in the UK and they get the proper support that they should be and are entitled to.

Scott Benton: There is nothing more important than the Union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but this relationship needs to be built on mutual respect, not coercion. These abortion regulations are a democratic and constitutional assault on Northern Ireland. Can my right hon. Friend explain why he has taken on new powers to enforce measures on abortion that were predicated on the continued absence of a sitting Assembly, when that Assembly has now been in situ for over 14 months and has voted against the first section 9 regulations?

Brandon Lewis: As I have said, the legal duties imposed by a significant majority of Parliament in mid-2019 are such that I have an ongoing role legally in this issue, and that duty did not fall away with the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland. My clear preference is and has always been that the Department of Health takes responsibility for delivering this healthcare, and to that end, we have given every opportunity and offered support to the Minister of Health and his  Department to take this forward for more than a year now, but no progress has been made. While Parliament considers these regulations, we will continue to engage with the Minister of Health and the Executive to try to find a way forward over the coming weeks before any direction is considered to be given.

Karin Smyth: I welcome the Secretary of State’s clear reference to the duty on him and welcome his personal work to learn of these harrowing cases; I totally agree that one journey made, particularly in an epidemic, is far too much. Does he agree that the United Kingdom seeks to be a beacon across the world for the rights of women and girls and supports many countries in access to healthcare, including abortions, and that the continued lack of this service within the United Kingdom is a stain on our reputation? I know that, as a strong Unionist, he is keen to assert that. Does he agree that getting this sorted now and working with Northern Ireland is critical to the future of the United Kingdom and the role that we want to play in the world?

Brandon Lewis: The hon. Lady makes an important and powerful point, which does not surprise me, because I know that she has worked hard on this issue and been a strong proponent of it for some time, including in her previous role as shadow Minister for Northern Ireland. I commend her for the work she has done, particularly with the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office. I know that she has always been a fulsome supporter of ensuring that women and girls in Northern Ireland get access to the same quality healthcare that they would elsewhere in the United Kingdom. She is quite right that that allows the United Kingdom to continue to lead globally in making the case for ensuring that women and girls around the world get the good-quality healthcare that they rightly deserve.

Bob Blackman: My right hon. Friend has rightly referred to the sensitivities around abortion not only in the United Kingdom but across the world. However, the situation here is that we in this House imposed on Northern Ireland rules when the Assembly was not sitting. The Assembly is now sitting and considering what is appropriate for Northern Ireland. Would he not consider stepping back and saying, “Let us hear from the Executive and the Assembly,” and then dropping the powers that we imposed in the emergency?

Brandon Lewis: I recognise that Parliament stepped in at the time it did in the way it did and imposed this duty on me on human rights grounds. However, the duty to implement the CEDAW recommendations in this context, as I have said, is a matter now of domestic law, with that legal obligation. We as a Government take our responsibility and our obligations in this regard very seriously and have always engaged constructively with the UN treaty body processes. It is only right that women and girls in Northern Ireland now are able to access safe local healthcare similar to that available to women and girls living elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I fervently hope, as I have outlined already this afternoon, that this is something the Department of Health and the Executive, even in these next few weeks, will find a way to be able to take forward in the way they feel is most appropriate for Northern Ireland, and to do so in   a positive way for women and girls in Northern Ireland, therefore avoiding us as a Government or as a Parliament having to take any further action.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The Secretary of State tells the House that he is under a duty to invoke  a piece of law that has been overtaken by another  piece of law. The actual law on standing today is the devolved settlement, which is very clear that abortion is a devolved matter and services arising from that are  a devolved matter.
The Secretary of State speaks very emotively and emotionally from the Dispatch Box today saying that he speaks for women and children—“for women and girls”, I think was his phrase—and that he has a moral obligation to do that. Where is his moral obligation to stand at that Dispatch Box and defend the most vulnerable of lives—the unborn life? When is someone from the Government going to actually do that and defend that vulnerability, or is the unborn life an unfortunate commodity that can be disposed of so lightly? That is the point that is being made.
The carefully balanced New Decade, New Approach agreement, which the Secretary of State is signed up to, is being upset by the Secretary of State. Indeed, today’s report, the “Review of UK Government Union Capability”, says:
“A core principle underpinning…devolution…is…respect”.
Where is the respect for the Government of Northern Ireland, for the people of Northern Ireland and for the unborn lives in Northern Ireland?

Brandon Lewis: I do recognise the point the hon. Gentleman has made, and it is a point he has made to me directly on a number of occasions, about the unborn child. I have to say and I appreciate that this is an area where we do not have a similar view. There are many where we do, but not on this one. I do actually think that the situation of an unborn child is a hugely important issue, and it is something that we do need to ensure is properly respected and understood. The best way to do that is to make sure that proper, qualified, official health officials are able to give the right care, advice and support to women and girls in Northern Ireland. Part of the danger of the situation at the moment is that there are too many cases of women and girls, as was outlined by Members earlier this afternoon, who are sadly taking advice from the wrong quarters, making bad decisions and suffering badly—and, potentially, unborn children suffering badly—through bad healthcare that is not properly provided. I would argue that that is also a reason why this should be taken forward.
I do agree that I would like to see this being taken forward in the most appropriate way for Northern Ireland by the Northern Ireland Executive. They have not been able to do that over the last year, and there is still—even after the New Decade, New Approach deal, which we are all working to ensure is delivered, even in the difficult times of covid—a legal duty on me, as per the Act of Parliament in 2019, to make sure that these services are provided. I will continue to work with the Department of Health to make sure we do everything we can to make sure this is taken forward locally in Northern Ireland, but this does need to be taken forward.

Jacob Young: I thank the Secretary of State for the care and sensitivity with which he has approached this matter. He knows that I, as a Unionist, am deeply uncomfortable with the position that we find ourselves in. However, I equally accept that he has a legal duty to act based on amended legislation and votes in this House. Can the Secretary of State confirm that it is possible for the Northern Ireland Assembly to develop its own plans provided that they are CEDAW-compliant, and that it is still the policy of the UK Government that sex-selective abortion is illegal?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I absolutely respect that point and his feelings on the issue. He is right that abortion remains a devolved issue, as others have rightly outlined. The Assembly can therefore seek to amend the regulations in a way that is compliant with convention rights. I absolutely recognise the sensitivities on the issue and take them very seriously, but the regulations, as he has highlighted, do not allow abortions on the grounds of sex selection. We will continue to work with the Department of Health to ensure that the right and proper official healthcare can be provided for women and girls in Northern Ireland on what is a very sensitive issue.

Charlotte Nichols: Women in Northern Ireland have waited decades for the same rights as women in the rest of the UK. Since the regulations became law at least 200 women have had to travel to Britain in the middle of a pandemic to access abortion services, and the Northern Ireland abortion and contraception taskforce reports that two women attempted suicide after their flights were cancelled and they were unable to travel for abortion in the absence of safe and legal healthcare in their own area. For those listening today, how long will they now have to wait for abortion services in Northern Ireland to be commissioned? Will the Secretary of State put a deadline on using the powers outlined in the written ministerial statement on Tuesday?

Brandon Lewis: The hon. Lady has outlined some of the harrowing examples that too many of us have heard or read about. We need to ensure that that does not happen to women and girls in the future. That is why we are bringing forward these regulations now. I fervently hope that we will be able to work with the Northern Ireland Executive, and that the Department of Health with the Executive will find a way to take this forward. The timeframe for the regulations is now a matter for this House, as it is an affirmative procedure situation, but it is clear from the fact that we are bringing this forward that the situation described by the hon. Lady will not be allowed to continue. We are putting these regulations in place so that we are able to take this action should we need to; it is a clear indication. If the Northern Ireland Executive are going to sort this out themselves, they need to do so swiftly—otherwise, once the measures have been through Parliament, we will be looking to ensure that these services are provided in Northern Ireland.

Angela Richardson: Although some people may wish to use this opportunity to reopen the discussion on the abortion regulations themselves, does my right hon. Friend agree that that time has passed  and that instead we should be focused on ensuring that the legal right for women and girls to access full abortion services in Northern Ireland is implemented?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are not seeking to reopen the debate on the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2020, as they were approved by a significant majority of the House. They delivered a framework that strikes a balance between delivering CEDAW compliance, ensuring the health and safety of women and girls, and giving clarity and certainty to healthcare professionals. I want to put on record my thanks to the medical professionals in Northern Ireland who have been working to deliver and support the rights of women and girls in this regard so far, but it is crucial that the Department of Health in Northern Ireland takes responsibility for delivering these services in line with the regulations.

Gavin Robinson: Madam Deputy Speaker, may I pass on my appreciation to Mr Speaker for allowing this urgent question? In my view, the Secretary of State should have been in the House on Tuesday and he should have brought forward a ministerial statement.
I am pleased with the Secretary of State’s comments in response to the last question, because throughout the course of this urgent question to suggest that this is about applying the law, and offering appropriate and quality healthcare, dismisses entirely the fact that our healthcare professionals are applying the law. The chief medical officer was incredibly clear about that this morning; he has taken it upon himself to advise healthcare professionals of their obligations, and the services are being provided. That has been lost in the course of this urgent question. Can I ask the Secretary of State to be  incredibly clear with the House—at any point, even though services are being provided today, has the Health Minister in Northern Ireland suggested that he will not commission those services?

Brandon Lewis: A few points arise from what the hon. Gentleman has just outlined. First, the action we have taken this week was outlined on the Floor of the House during oral questions. We laid a statement on Tuesday. This action is being taken under the affirmative procedure, so it will be a matter for debate and can be properly discussed in this House. It is about our legal obligations as per 2019 to ensure that the services are properly provided.
We are now, as an hon. Friend outlined earlier, some 14 months on from the re-establishment of the Executive and the Department of Health is not at this stage providing the full range of services, although the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that, as I outlined in my opening remarks on this urgent question, some 1,100 individuals—women and girls—have been given services over the last period. I thank the health professionals for doing that, but there are still far too many individuals who are having to travel to mainland Great Britain to get the full range of medical support and services—services that are not available in Northern Ireland which are available elsewhere in the UK. We are under a legal obligation to ensure that that ability to access healthcare for women and girls in Northern Ireland is similar to that across the rest of the United Kingdom.

Eleanor Laing: I will now briefly suspend the House in order that arrangements can be made for the next item of business.
Sitting suspended.

Business of the House

Valerie Vaz: Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The business for the week commencing 12 April will include:
Monday 12 April—The House will not be sitting.
Tuesday 13 April—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Wednesday 14 April—Opposition day (19th allotted day). There will be a motion in the name of the Official Opposition, subject to be announced.
Thursday 15 April—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Domestic Abuse Bill.
Friday 16 April—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 19 April will include:
Monday 19 April—Consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill (day 1).
Tuesday 20 April—Continuation of consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill (day 2).
Wednesday 21 April—Motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to counter-terrorism followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill.
Thursday 22 April—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 23 April—The House will not be sitting.
May I announce to the House that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Whitsun recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 27 May and return on Monday 7 June?

Valerie Vaz: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business, and of course for the Opposition day. It is the 19th allotted day, so it would be useful to know when this Session is coming to an end and when we are going to prorogue and have a Queen’s Speech.
I note that there is a motion on the Order Paper, which I hope will be passed, allowing an extension of the procedures until 21 June. I think they have all been quite useful. The numbers of cases and deaths are now slightly rising; I noticed that they were going up as of yesterday.
I know the Leader of the House will join me in condemning the rise in hate crime against Asian people, particularly Asian people in America, and the deaths of the Asian women last week.
Yesterday, the shadow Deputy Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), spoke of the loss of a generation in his family—his parents-in-law and his mother—and he and the Leader of the Opposition called on the Prime Minister to set up an inquiry. The Leader of the House will know that nurse Mary Agyapong was sent home after collapsing and then died, so it is really important that we start looking at best practice, at where things are going wrong and at what is happening.
I will try this again. Arj Singh is the deputy political editor of HuffPost UK. He is not a “cheat”, he is not a “knave” and he is not a “fool”. There was no clipping—the shearing season has not started yet—and it was not poor-quality online journalism because it was in The Times. The headline was:
“Ignore human rights and strike trade deals”,
and the Foreign Secretary has admitted that it was verbatim: he said that that is exactly what he said. I note that the Leader of the House did not apologise in his podcast to the journalist in question; I wonder whether he could do so today. We want sanctions; we do not want trade deals. A seven-year-old was shot in her father’s arms in Myanmar.
I thank the Leader of the House for his assiduousness in dealing with everything that I raise in business questions. I got a response from the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, the right hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), who said that Mehran Raoof had not requested consular assistance, yet Amnesty International has labelled him a prisoner of conscience. Richard Ratcliffe has said that nothing has been decided on Nazanin, and there is nothing on Anousheh or on Luke Symons. They have still not been returned to their families. I do not know whether the Foreign Secretary is going to update us, or when they are likely to be coming home to their families.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) said that she had seen a newspaper exclusive that Dr Harries may be in line for a promotion. I am not sure that it is acceptable to announce that first as an exclusive to a newspaper and then as a written statement which was published yesterday. What is this new UK health security agency? Why have things been rearranged while we are in the middle of a pandemic? Why has the Secretary of State for Health not come to the House to explain what this agency is, so that we can ask questions? Worse still, 18 written statements have been published today, according to the Order Paper. That is not acceptable at all.
Could we have an urgent statement—there is still time before we rise for Easter—on the Department for Work and Pensions having been held to have an unlawful policy on regulations? It is charging people by taking fines from their universal credit.
I would also like a statement and clarification on whether turning the green belt into a car park is a new Government policy. The current Mayor of the West Midlands wants to turn a meadow off Walstead Road into a car park so that people can drive there and then get on the Sprint route. He thinks that Transport West Midlands is not under his jurisdiction, but it is. He also says that he does not want to build on green spaces, but he is building that right in the town centre. Could we have a statement on whether there are different Government policies for the west midlands on the green belt, housing, buses and cars?
I wonder whether the Leader of the House can help me with another matter. A constituent rang yesterday. He said that he exports saddles and that when he did so to a customer in the Netherlands, the customer was charged €200. He said that he thought that we had a free trade agreement with the EU that would protect his business. Can the Leader of the House please tell him what he can do? I presume that it will be Lord Frost who will answer that.
May I now wish some people a happy retirement? I have heard that Dido Harding might be leaving Test and Trace next month. No announcement has been made to the House. It would be useful to find out about that. More importantly, Dr Chris Handy from Accord Housing in the west midlands is to retire. He started there 50 years ago with 24 employees and a few hundred homes. Now he has 3,500 staff, 13,000 homes and a fantastic eco-home, which he has innovated. He has written books on the law of social landlords and “Housing Association Law and Practice”. He has given voice to some of the most vulnerable and has helped them to find homes after coming out of prison. He will be missed, so I say thank you to Dr Chris Handy for his innovation at Accord.
The Lord Speaker is also stepping down in April. I thank him for all his work over the past four years. He has made a great contribution, and I know that he will campaign on HIV and AIDS. Tomorrow is International Epilepsy Day, so I hope that everyone will be wearing purple.
Finally, 365 days ago on Tuesday the world shook, and it is still shaking now. We all know someone close who has died in the pandemic, and I wish everyone a very peaceful Easter.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: May I join the right hon. Lady in wishing everybody a happy Easter? I also thank everybody who ensures that the House of Commons runs so efficiently and so effectively. There is always an appropriate time—there is never an inappropriate time—in which to thank the Doorkeepers for their magnificent work. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] They are such a visible show of the dignity of the House of Commons when they are seen on television and such an unfailing help to Members. I also thank everybody else who is involved behind the scenes, who have been here when Members have been zooming in. Without them, Members would not have been able to zoom in. It is the behind-the-scenes staff who have allowed us to do our constitutional duty and I am sure that we would all like to record our thanks.
May I join the right hon. Lady in paying tribute to my noble Friend, Lord Fowler, who is retiring? He has been a very distinguished public servant—a statesman, it would be fair to say. He is famous for many things, not least for developing the term, “Retiring to spend more time with his family”, which became code when people left Government at one point for perhaps more profound disagreements, but, none the less, on this retirement, I hope that he genuinely will be spending more time with his family.
I do not know Dr Chris Handy, but what the right hon. Lady says of him is so impressive. Trying to give people a second chance and getting prisoners to have homes is a very important statement about the society in which we believe, so I wish him a very happy retirement.
The Queen’s Speech is scheduled for 11 May, and that has now been announced. The motions that are being laid before the House and which will be debated with the motions on the coronavirus restrictions will take us through to 21 May and are based on the advice that the Government are using on the road map.
I share the right hon. Lady’s criticism, shock and outrage at hate crimes that lead to people being killed. Society must do absolutely everything to stop that. The law must be upheld and the law must be enforced.
On online news organisation, I refer to what the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office said last week:
“We regret that this audio has been deliberately and selectively clipped to distort the Foreign Secretary’s comments.”
The effect was to leave a fundamentally false impression in the mind of the reader. This is why I encourage all journalists to ensure that quotes fully reflect the audio available. I hope that the right hon. Lady agrees with that and would do the same. Let them huff and puff, but they will not blow this particular House down.
The right hon. Lady rightly raises, every week, the issue of dual nationals held improperly overseas. The Foreign Secretary obviously takes this very seriously. We have discussed before the limitations of what Her Majesty’s Government can do, but within their powers, Her Majesty’s Government do what they can. There is regular engagement not only with the families concerned to offer them support, but with the Governments concerned to try and pursue the interests of those British nationals held overseas. I think the treatment of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is so outrageous that the Iranian Government should be ashamed of how they have treated her.
The changes to Public Health England were announced some months ago, so I do not think it is unreasonable that further information is becoming available and is made available to the House in a written ministerial statement—half the time the right hon. Lady asks me for more statements and then, when we give more statements, she says we have too many and that is unfair. It is inevitable; we have had so many oral statements recently—I think we have had five this week and six last week, in addition to the urgent questions that have been asked—so there has been real effort to keep Parliament up to date. There are always constraints on the time available, so there are often things that we would like to give statements on but we cannot have a third statement on a particular day. That is the normal organisation of business and it is perfectly reasonable. Before a recess, all Governments always put out a larger number of written statements for the very obvious reason that there is an obligation in the ministerial code to tell Parliament first. Anyone who has worked to a deadline will know that the deadline of a recess encourages Government Departments to put out their statements, quite rightly.
Let me finish on the wonderful achievements of the Mayor of the west midlands, who has done such a fabulous job in making the west midlands a place where people want to do business and are succeeding in doing business. It has been an area of prosperity under his excellent and benign leadership. I visited, in the right hon. Lady’s constituency, a fantastic brownfield site development that was being led—energised—by the Mayor for the west midlands, and I wish him every possible success in the upcoming local elections, where I am sure he will triumph because he has been so good at doing his job.

Sir David Amess: On the eve of the launch of the Dame Vera Lynn memorial fund appeal, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the distribution of discretionary grants to businesses by local authorities during the coronavirus pandemic? I have had a number of local companies, including sole traders, complaining about delays in receiving funds, the interpretation of eligibility by my  local authority and no commonality with other councils. Surely with the Government giving the money to local authorities to distribute, it is their duty to make sure that it reaches businesses that need the support as soon as possible. I do wish everyone a very happy Easter.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Government have introduced an unprecedented package of support for businesses throughout the pandemic and are working closely with local authorities to ensure that funding can get to the right places as quickly as is practicable. The additional restrictions grant continues to enable local authorities to put in place discretionary business support. Local authorities are free to provide support that suits their local area, including support for those businesses that are not required to close but whose trade has been severely affected by restrictions, and those businesses that fall outside the business rates system, such as market traders. But it is a discretionary system and if we believe in local accountability and local decision making, sometimes we have to accept that the local decisions will not be the decisions that we ourselves would have made.

Eleanor Laing: I am sure that the Lord President of the Council will welcome the launch of the Dame Vera Lynn appeal.

Owen Thompson: I associate myself with the comments of the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), about the urgent need to tackle the rise in hate crime. Equally, I wish all Members of the House a happy Easter and express my thanks to the staff of the House, who have helped all Members in such a difficult period over the last year.
Not only does today represent day 38 of 42 days of strike action by British Gas engineers over the shameful fire and rehire threat, but it—or more accurately, noon just passed—was the deadline given to those engineers to sign up to new, reduced terms and conditions or to face the sack. Unless British Gas takes that off the table at the eleventh hour, those who refuse to be bullied into signing the new contracts will be sacked on 1 April. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) questioned Ministers on this issue time and again, including bringing legislation to outlaw the practice, which has led the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to instruct ACAS to carry out a review. As I understand it, that reported to Government over a week ago, but it has not yet been brought forward. Can the Leader of the House please ask his colleagues in BEIS to come to the House as a matter of urgency to make a statement on this heinous practice, which has already affected so many across the country?
Governments have a long and bitter history of interactions with mining communities. I was certainly very welcoming of the Scottish Government’s commitment to issuing pardons for unjust convictions that ruined the lives of so many miners in the ’80s. I still hope that we could see action from this Government to play their part and launch a full inquiry into the policing of miners’ strikes in the ’80s. May we have a debate in Government time to look at that issue, but also at how we can use those mines today to create new jobs and opportunities, for example through geothermal energy?
Finally, may I ask the Leader of the House to join me in expressing his thanks to my constituent Jim Ralston, who this week has announced his retirement as captain of the Loanhead Boys’ Brigade company? Jim has been its captain for 12 years and we wish him well in his future endeavours. Will he also wish every success to the former hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts and now Steward and Bailiff of Her Majesty’s Manor of Northstead, Neil Gray, in his future endeavours, as well as to our candidate in the upcoming by-election, Anum Qaisar?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I always wish to spread goodwill. The hon. Gentleman is pushing me a little bit far in wishing SNP candidates success in by-elections, but I do wish Neil Gray every personal success outside this House. He is a wonderful person to deal with. I was on the Joint Committee on restoration and renewal with him, and he was a voice of good sense, good humour and kindliness. He will be missed by this House. Unfortunately, I cannot wish my electoral opponents electoral success, but I hope he has every other success.
Jim Ralston sounds to have been a wonderful servant of the people in his work for the Boys’ Brigade. I am more than happy to congratulate him on his retirement and thank him on behalf of the Government. Our whole country depends on the voluntary work that so many millions undertake with enthusiasm and we have seen that particularly over the last year.
As regards fire and rehire, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that BEIS has received the ACAS report. It is being considered by Ministers. It was received only a week ago. There will be the normal routine of questions to BEIS once the House is back after the Easter recess. The Government have been very clear that employers threatening to fire and rehire as a negotiating tactic are doing something that is quite wrong. Employers must treat employees fairly and in the spirit of partnership during contractual negotiations. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) has had a number of meetings on this issue and has condemned the practice in the strongest possible terms in the House and elsewhere.
I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman says about the possibility of using mines for geothermal energy. I cannot claim to be an expert in geothermal energy, but we should always be looking to find new and clean ways of providing energy.

Mark Eastwood: At football stadiums in Germany and Scotland, safe standing has been successfully trialled and found to be safe, according to a report by England’s Sports Grounds Safety Authority. The Conservative manifesto committed to working with fans and clubs towards introducing safe standing at football. Will my right hon. Friend provide an update to the House on when the Government will bring it forward?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: That is an important question and I know that many football supporters have a great interest in it and in the atmosphere created by safe standing. The Government are committed to working towards a return of standing areas for football spectators. Obviously, the immediate priority are the preparations for the return of fans to stadiums, as set out in the road map for stage 3—although it is not football, dare I say that I  have my tickets for the test matches at Lord’s later on in the year, and that I am hoping the New Zealand one is open to spectators, but we shall see—and the work of the events research programme to consider how we may, among other things, increase the number of spectators. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will then, in due course, return to the pledge made in our manifesto. It has not been forgotten, but there are other things going on at the moment—I suppose that is my message to my hon. Friend.

Ian Mearns: I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement and for announcing the Backbench Business Committee business for Thursday 22nd. It is our intention that the first item will be a Liaison Committee-sponsored debate, led by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), on covid data transparency and accountability. Madam Deputy Speaker, may I wish you a happy Easter, and wish a happy Easter and a pleasant break to all Members and House staff and staff who have facilitated our virtual participation in this Chamber, in Select Committees and in all allowable business in these extraordinary times? May I also wish the Jewish community, who are my friends, neighbours and constituents here in Gateshead and across the country, a very happy celebration of Passover, which begins this weekend?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: May I join the hon. Gentleman in wishing the Jewish community a happy Passover? I recall that when studying A-levels I looked in some detail as to whether the last supper was a Passover feast or not. In St John’s gospel it seems not to be, whereas in the synoptic gospels it seems to be. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s good wishes and for his telling us the first debate in the next Backbench Business Committee business.

Elliot Colburn: Last week, I was delighted to visit the new vaccination centre at the St Nicholas centre in Sutton, where Carshalton and Wallington residents will soon be invited to come forward to receive their vaccinations. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking the site matron, Wendy, and all the staff and volunteers who have made this possible? May we have a debate on how we can recognise them and everyone who has stepped up throughout this pandemic?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend is so right to raise this and the incredible work that has been done by staff and volunteers at vaccination centres across the country. I am looking forward next Tuesday to going to the Bath racecourse, which is in my constituency—it is not actually in Bath—for my vaccination. For the record, I am not giving up my racecourse to Bath. I particularly congratulate Wendy, the site matron. She sounds absolutely splendid and deserves the commendation of the House. People like Wendy have played a vital role in the vaccine roll-out, and thanks to their incredible work about 28 million people have now received their first dose across the UK, which is more than half of all adults in our country.

Debbie Abrahams: The Leader of the House should be aware of the widespread concerns about the Government’s proposals  for the NHS reorganisation in the middle of a pandemic. For many, this is seen as creating more opportunities for Government cronyism and dodgy contracts. The creation of strong, well-co-ordinated governance arrangements seems to have been an afterthought and that reflects this Government’s priorities. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) said, given these concerns, why has there been no oral statement to the House on the next stages of this reorganisation? A written statement gives no opportunity to hold the Government to account.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: As I said earlier, there are huge pressures on time in this House, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be at the Dispatch Box immediately after this session in a debate on covid regulations, and it will be possible to intervene on him to raise points. But I fundamentally dispute, disagree with and reject the question of cronyism. The success of the ordering programme—the procurement programme—over the last year is quite extraordinary, and something of which this country should be proud. The vaccine roll-out depended upon being fleet of foot in ordering the vaccines and putting the money forward. On other procurement, 1% of personal protective equipment was domestically produced a year ago and now, excluding gloves, 70% will be domestically produced. Normally, awarding government contracts takes three to six months. If we had waited six months, we would not have had the vaccine roll-out starting until this summer—it would have been too late. What has been done was quite right, entirely justifiable and in the best traditions of the British state acting properly.

Tom Hunt: Last weekend, just outside Ipswich, 83 stolen dogs were found. There have been six people arrested who are currently out on bail. Suffolk police deserve to be credited for their successful operation—one of the largest involving stolen dogs. But the concern among many of my constituents is that those responsible get away with little more than a slap on the wrist. I have raised this matter before during business questions and I have also led a debate on it. I have written to the Sentencing Council asking it to amend the guidance around the Theft Act 1968 and was rebutted. It is clear to me that only action in this place will ensure that this will cease to become a high reward, low risk crime. Will my right hon. Friend find time in this place to debate what action this place can take to stand up for our pets?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend raises a matter that is of concern to a number of hon. and right hon. Members. It is an appalling crime that causes great distress, and it has increased over the past year. The theft of a pet is a criminal offence under the Theft Act and carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment, so when he says that it is a low risk, high reward crime, that shows that people should perhaps be better informed of the risk they are taking. Seven years is a very serious sentence. The Sentencing Council’s guidelines on theft now take account of the emotional distress for the victim caused by any theft offence, including theft of a pet, meaning that the courts will now take this into account when considering the appropriate sentence. As I understand it, the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are discussing possible ways of  strengthening the enforcement of pet theft, and of course the Government have hired over 6,600 new police officers during the course of this Parliament, which will help us to tackle this crime better. My hon. Friend will be aware that by raising this issue in the Chamber and making it one of political importance, the police will pay attention and will know what is of public concern. Police resources, and police and crime commissioner elections, tend to follow where there is greatest public concern, so he is ensuring that this issue will be taken more seriously merely by raising it in this House.

Clive Efford: This week a Health Minister said that in her discussions with NHS staff they had not asked for a pay increase. Can we have a debate in Government time on a motion drafted by the Government that defends the 1% pay increase, which is in effect a pay cut, for NHS staff so that hon. Members in all parts of this House can hear from their constituents who work in the NHS and come here with true testimonies about what they think about a 1% pay increase?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: This has to be seen in the context of the economy as a whole and what has already been done. The starting salary for a newly qualified nurse increased by over 12% in 2017-18, and the average nurse’s pay is now at £34,000 a year. The starting salaries for the lowest-paid, such as healthcare assistants and porters, have increased by 16% since 2017-18 from £15,404 to £18,005. So steps have been taken over the longer term to help those working for the NHS. In this current financial circumstance, there is a 1% pay increase for all NHS staff, but an additional 0.7% has been awarded for nurses. The NHS and nurses have been excluded from the general pay restraint because the country—the nation as a whole—recognises the extraordinary work they have done in the past year, the courage they have shown and the public service they have shown, and that has been rewarded as much as possible in these difficult financial circumstances.

Anthony Mangnall: This week, on 22 March, the United Nations released a statement about the conflict in Ethiopia relating to the Tigray region in which it outlined the gross violations of human rights, including sexual violence against women and rape. The UK has a long history in tackling this issue—since 2012 and the creation of the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative—but unfortunately we have been somewhat muted on the subject. Will the Leader of the House push for further action from the Government so that we can have a statement when the House returns and ensure that the PSVI unit is deployed where possible to help those who are suffering from an outdated, horrific crime that we have a moral duty to respond to?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend raises an issue of greatest concern. I particularly commend my noble Friend Lord Hague for establishing the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative in 2012, which has had widespread support. The Government have received reports of widespread sexual violence perpetrated by different armed groups. These attacks ought to stop and those responsible for such crimes must be held to account. The protection of civilians is at the core of the UK’s response to the crisis. In Tigray, we will work to promote justice for survivors of sexual violence, provide  support to survivors and children born of conflict-related sexual violence and prevent further sexual violence from occurring.
The United Kingdom has a zero-tolerance approach to abuse and exploitation in our aid programmes. UK-funded organisations operating in Tigray are aware of their obligations to protect beneficiaries from exploitation and abuse and of the need to manage such risks appropriately. We are working with the co-ordination system to ensure that collective mechanisms are implemented in Tigray. Prevention is central to aid.
I commend my hon. Friend for raising this issue. He said it was not getting enough attention. Thanks to him, it is now getting more attention. The issue has been raised, and it is one of fundamental importance.

Stephen Flynn: The Scottish Government have just enshrined in law the UN convention on the rights of the child, they have just announced plans to nationalise our rail fleet and they are, of course, giving NHS staff a 4% pay increase. That is in contrast to the UK Government, who are seeking to restock and increase the nuclear arsenal, who are moving forward with plans to limit peaceful protest and who are giving NHS staff just a 1% pay increase. Should we not have a debate in this Parliament on the most important of issues: a tale of two Governments?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman is brave to bring to this House a discussion of two Governments. There are all sorts of things I could be tempted to say about the Government currently in Scotland and all the extraordinary shenanigans going on there—who said what to whom, when and where, and who may or may not have put pressure on prosecutors. All sorts of things are going on; it is all pretty unsatisfactory, and it is lucky that there are elections coming up.
I would point out that devolution has the benefit of the strength of the United Kingdom behind it. That is why the UK taxpayer has been able to provide £12.12 billion to Scotland during the pandemic. United Kingdom taxpayers—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman chunters away from a sedentary position, and I know that the people of Scotland pay taxes—particularly high taxes, because of the rapacious left-wing Government they have that likes to take money from them. However, it is UK taxpayers combined who have provided this £12.12 billion, which was supported 779,500 jobs, provided 78% of the tests that have been done in Scotland and then processed in the rest of the United Kingdom, and supported over 157,000 people on the self-employed scheme. The strength of the United Kingdom is quite extraordinary. Scotland benefits from that, and that is why it is able to afford to do the other things that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Matthew Offord: Making a success of Brexit, rebuilding after the pandemic, and changes to patterns of working, such as working from home, will all require a comprehensive and efficient broadband infrastructure. My constituents in Edgware and Mill Hill have already found to their detriment that current provision is not adequate, so I dread to think what it is like in other parts of the country. Will a Minister attend the Dispatch Box and outline what the Government are doing to make reliable, efficient broadband  connectivity a reality? Red tape and regulation must not be excuses and hinder our progress in this field, given that we currently rank 47th in the world speed league.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I understand from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport that his constituency has pretty good coverage, with over 66% of Hendon having access to gigabit-capable broadband, compared with the UK average of under 40%. Nevertheless, the Government are aware that we need to upgrade more of the broadband network to gigabit-capable speeds as soon as possible. We are targeting a minimum of 85% gigabit-capable coverage by 2025, but we are ambitious to get close to 100% as soon as possible, and we are spending £5 billion of taxpayers’ money in subsidising the roll-out in the harder-to-reach 20% of the United Kingdom. The first areas to benefit from the £5 billion Project Gigabit programme were announced on Friday. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is working with suppliers to ensure that there is maximum transparency around their plans, but I will of course pass on my hon. Friend’s concerns to the Secretary of State.

Wera Hobhouse: Community energy projects are an excellent way to bring people in behind our ambition to get to net zero by 2050, yet there are still significant regulatory barriers to making community energy more widespread. The Local Electricity Bill, sponsored by the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), received 258 signatures from cross-party MPs, and an Adjournment debate on the same topic last autumn attracted a record number of MPs who intervened in support of the Bill. Clearly, we need more time to debate this issue, so may we have a debate in Government time on the importance of establishing a statutory right to local energy supply?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I thank the hon. Lady for her point, and I am delighted that the Lib-Dems are now becoming a party of deregulation. Speaking from the Treasury Bench, I confess that deregulation is something that warms the cockles of my heart. Seven private Member’s Bill managed to go through to the House of Lords, although inevitably not every Bill got through. The hon. Lady is right to raise the deregulatory ambition of herself and of others in the House, and there will obviously be private Member’s Bills in the next Session which, as I announced earlier, will start on 11 May.

Selaine Saxby: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt), our excellent Devon and Cornwall police and crime commissioner, Alison Hernandez, is concerned about the growing issue of pet theft. In Devon and Cornwall there are, on average, 80 dog thefts a year, a quarter of which are linked to organised crime, yet no one has received the maximum sentence of only seven years. Will my right hon. Friend allocate Government time to debate how to tackle the issue of pet theft and ensure that the punishment reflects the crime? The loss of a loved pet—a member of the family—is far more than mere theft.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt), this is a terrible crime, and the Government are taking measures to help  tackle it better, with more than 6,600 additional police officers. I join my hon. Friend in thanking Alison Hernandez for her terrific work as police and crime commissioner, and for highlighting this important issue. It is worth adding to my earlier remarks, that if someone causes an animal to suffer in the course of stealing it from its owner, they are liable for prosecution under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill is currently in the House of Lords. If passed, it will increase the maximum penalty for such a crime to five years, which would be the highest penalty for animal cruelty in Europe. There is the risk of seven years in prison for pet theft, and five years for cruelty to animals. The penalties are there—or will be if the House of Lords obliges—and this is a question of enforcement and catching wrongdoers. That is where the extra 6,600 police will help.

John Cryer: The Leader of the House will be aware, as we all are, of a number of hospital rebuilds in the pipeline, one of which—Whipps Cross Hospital—is in my constituency. Those rebuilds are welcome across the House, but there are also concerns that a number of the projects imply reductions in bed numbers. Particularly after the pandemic, that seems to me, and to many other Members, very misguided. Indeed, people were saying that even before the pandemic. When Parliament returns, may we have a statement from the Health and Social Care Secretary on bed numbers in hospital rebuilds?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is pleased by the hospital rebuilds programme, and he raises a serious and important point. My right hon. Friend the Health and Social Care Secretary will be at the Dispatch Box shortly, and that question could be raised with him in an intervention. I will pass on the point to my right hon. Friend after this statement, and try to get the hon. Gentleman an answer regarding what is the policy, and what has been learned from the pandemic.

Julian Lewis: I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Government are rightly working on a scheme to protect blameless leaseholders from financial ruin owing to the cladding scandal, yet as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) and others movingly explained on Monday, lessees are even now being handed bills well in excess of £70,000 for hugely expensive waking watch arrangements and other costs, which they cannot possibly afford. May we urgently have a Government statement on how to prevent such innocent people from being forced to forfeit their leases, sacrifice their homes and declare themselves bankrupt before the new scheme has been fully activated?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Government have always been clear that leaseholders should not have undue worry about the costs of remediating historical defects that they did not cause. Waking watch arrangements have been in place for far too long, and leaseholders are being left to pick up sometimes very high bills. That is why the Government are providing £30 million for a waking watch relief fund to install fire alarms and other interim measures, providing alternatives to the expensive waking watch systems. I will take this up on my right hon Friend’s behalf with the Secretary of State, but Housing, Communities and Local Government Questions  are on 19 April. I point to the measures that the Government have introduced, which my right hon. Friend referred to, which will be of considerable assistance to leaseholders and get the right balance between leaseholders, the taxpayer and freeholders.

Chris Elmore: I know that the Leader of the House will agree that, throughout the pandemic, our posties have been working harder than ever, and I pay tribute to those frontline, dedicated individuals. Two communities in my constituency, Llanharan and Brynna, have in some periods gone more than four weeks without the delivery of mail during the pandemic, with Royal Mail therefore not meeting its universal service obligation. I wonder if the Leader of the House could find time for a Minister to issue a written statement or, indeed, to come to the Floor of the House after the Easter Recess, to explain what work they are doing with Royal Mail HQ to ensure that our hard-working postmen and women are supported on the ground and that Royal Mail meets that obligation. I have too many constituents missing, for example, letters of confirmation of their vaccination, which I am sure he will agree is not acceptable.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Indeed, I am in considerable agreement with the hon. Gentleman. Four weeks without mail will be a real problem for people. Royal Mail has a universal service obligation. I absolutely understand that the pandemic has made things difficult for some businesses, and that staffing arrangements, rotas and so on have been problematic, but I would have thought that in four weeks alternative arrangements could have been made. A well-run businesses ought surely to be able to organise its staffing in such way that nobody has to wait that long. I will of course pass on his points to the relevant Department.

Sarah Dines: I am extremely concerned about the wellbeing of our children and young people due to their isolation from their friends and peers during the pandemic. May we please have time for a debate on the importance of voluntary organisations, such as the 1st Hathersage Scouts, the 1st Matlock Boys Brigade, the 2nd Matlock Brownies, the 1st Doveridge Scout group and Girlguiding groups in places such as Bakewell and Calver, which provide vital support and socialising opportunities for our young people and children? They must be supported and protected now.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government recognise the strain that has been put on children and their families over the past year. Ensuring that children can play and socialise safely again is a great priority. They also have fun; am I allowed to use the word “fun”, Madam Deputy Speaker? Children ought to enjoy themselves. The Scouts and Brownies ensure that children enjoy themselves. They look at that great figure Bear Grylls and think, “Perhaps I can eat a slug too; what will my parents have to say?” [Interruption.] There may also be vegetarian scouts who do not want to eat slugs; I accept the heckle from the Opposition Bench.
That is very important, as is the mental health of children, which the Government are doing a great deal to support, with an extra £79 million to boost mental  health support for children and young people. Some 22,500 more children and young people will have access to such services next year, and an additional 345,000 by 2024. The last year has been difficult. Let us hope that the Scouts and Guides, wonderful features of our civic life that they are, will open up soon and that children will be able to enjoy themselves and, dare I say it, do those things that their parents probably do not always approve of until they find out about them later.

Eleanor Laing: So true.

Emma Lewell-Buck: In my constituency, there are a number of large developments that are at complete odds with many residents’ wishes—a pontoon at Market Dock, the destruction of fields and a popular playpark at Holborn Riverside, and the construction of an unnecessary flyover at Tilesheds. The planning system is completely failing them. Residents were not involved in the decisions at the outset, and now they are expressing concerns that they are being ignored, railroaded and, in some cases, treated with contempt. Can we have an urgent debate on reforming planning so that local people have a real say in what happens in their community?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I have visited the hon. Lady’s constituency and know what an attractive place it is, and it deserves to remain attractive. This always leads to arguments over planning, but the planning system is fundamentally a local one, with local councils having the majority say in planning developments. I suggest that, initially, this is taken up with the local council. It is only at the stage when things are called in to national Government that they become a matter for central Government.

Pauline Latham: Easter is a time for love, but there is not going to be much love this Easter because very few people will be able to get married. It is a traditional time for marriage. This continues to be a very difficult situation for the wedding industry, which is mainly run by women, and I hope that the Government have not forgotten women’s industries and businesses. Pubs and sporting venues will be allowed to open, but it is a very difficult situation for the wedding industry. Brides have not been able to buy their dresses for nearly a year. The wedding industry contributes millions of pounds to the Exchequer, but these businesses are not being allowed to open properly, and yet pubs can. Can we have an urgent discussion about how we can help the industry understand these very conflicting rules, get these people back to business and let love flourish?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend reminds us that, historically, marriages did not take place during Lent, and therefore took place immediately after Lent. She is right to say that spring is a time when people want to get married and the weather is better for their celebrations. I can assure her that the Minister for Small Business, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), is regularly in contact with the industry-led weddings taskforce, established to represent all parts of the UK wedding sector, to understand the effect of the pandemic on jobs and businesses.
Over the course of the pandemic, the Government have provided an unprecedented package of financial support to businesses, including those in the wedding  industry, and that is kept under regular review. I understand that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has further discussions planned with the industry-led weddings taskforce to appreciate the sector’s concerns and help it through the reopening period.
Over 28 million people in the UK have received their first dose of the vaccine, increasing the likelihood that restrictions will be eased at each step of the road map, including restrictions on weddings, but I sympathise very much with what my hon. Friend says and the representations she makes on behalf of her constituents. She is right to say that the wedding industry has been particularly badly affected by the pandemic, and it is important that it can get back to normal as soon as is practicable, in accordance with the road map.

Marion Fellows: The UK Government have promised to publish their national strategy for disabled people this spring and have consulted the public and committed to listening further. Given how all-encompassing this strategy will be, can we have an interim statement on the general direction of the strategy, informed by their survey, ahead of publication, so that Members can debate the intended strategy and provide further input on behalf of our constituents?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Lady is right to mention the national strategy for disabled people. Spring has only just sprung—we are only a very few days into it—so the intention is still very much to publish it in spring. In terms of parliamentary time, with the recess that is coming up and the end of the Session in sight, I fear that I cannot promise her the debate that she asks for in Government time, but it may well be a subject for an Adjournment debate, or indeed the Backbench Business Committee may be able to slot it in on one of its remaining days.

Julie Marson: After many months of conversations with senior executives from BP and McDonald’s, I am pleased that the two companies have agreed to progress a scheme that will resolve the long-standing problems at Rush Green roundabout in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the many residents and councillors who have campaigned on this issue and encourage the companies to implement the necessary alterations to the site as quickly as possible?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: We do not want to go round in circles on this issue, but I thank my hon. Friend for her question and the work she is doing in her constituency.

Kevin Brennan: Be a revolutionary!

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am certainly not a revolutionary—or a gyrator, either, for that matter.
I am sure that this will be welcome news for residents in Hertford and Stortford. It is fantastic to see businesses—leading forces of capitalism such as British Petroleum and McDonald’s, international titans that they are—contributing to their local communities, ensuring smooth and fast journeys for their customers and all the people in Hertfordshire. It is in their interests, is it not? If the roundabout runs smoothly, people can go and fill up  with petrol and then go for a drive-through McDonald’s. The businesses are quite right to contribute, because it will benefit them in the long run.

Apsana Begum: This week we saw a historic result for the campaign for the Shrewsbury 24, who had their convictions quashed by the Court of Appeal. That verdict is significant for the rights of working people in the UK. Sadly, many of those involved, who saw their lives ruined by the politicisation of charges, did not live long enough to see justice done. Given that, and the fact that this verdict was achieved after half a century of injustice, does the Leader of the House believe that time should be allocated to debate the merits of the Government’s holding a public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the dispute and the trial?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Appeal Court has ruled, and that shows that British justice works and that we have a country where, when mistakes are made, we have the systems to ensure that those mistakes are admitted to, even if after a long time. We do not just say, “Well that happened a long time ago; we are therefore ignoring it.” We should be proud of our justice system and the fact that it spends time looking at historical cases and setting the record straight. For those who have not lived long enough to see it, at least their families know that there was no stain on their family member’s character, and I think that is important and reassuring to those who mourn.

Chris Green: I am enthusiastically looking forward to the 2022 Commonwealth games in Birmingham, which I hear will be the best ever. What will make them even better is Perry the mascot, which was designed by my constituent Emma Lou from Westhoughton. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating her, and will he perhaps pose with Perry?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I absolutely congratulate my hon. Friend and his constituent Emma Lou on winning the mascot design competition for the 2022 Commonwealth games, which will take place in Birmingham. I am delighted to hear that they are going to be the best ever—we take that as a firm promise from my hon. Friend—and to hear about Perry the bull, inspired by the city’s famous Bullring.
I remember as a child a story about Ferdinand the bull, who did not like to fight but liked to sit there smelling the flowers, until he got stung by a bee and therefore charged around like billy-oh. The bullfighting catchers were around that day and they took him off, and then he sat in the bullring sniffing the flowers. It was a bit of a disappointment for the audience. I hope Perry is a more active bull, with his fantastic horns and his colourful hexagons. It is very encouraging that the mascot has been chosen—and would I pose for a photo with Perry? I would be honoured, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I hope you will join me.

Eleanor Laing: I am sure I would be delighted, Lord President.

Chris Matheson: May I add my concerns to those of other hon. Members about the increasingly common tactic of fire and rehire across businesses? I welcomed the Leader of the House’s  comments earlier, and I reflect on the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), talked about it being “bully boy tactics”, and he is absolutely right. BEIS has had that ACAS report since 17 February. There will be a couple of extra weeks now after the Easter recess. I urge the Leader of the House to bring forward emergency legislation, which by the sound of things would have support, so that we can outlaw this disgraceful tactic of fire and rehire.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reiterating the point, which is a serious one. Employers threatening to fire and rehire as a negotiating tactic are doing something that is wrong and that decent employers do not do. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy could not have been clearer about what a bad practice it is. The hon. Gentleman says that BEIS has had the report since 17 February, which was slightly longer than I had realised, but none the less for something of this importance that is not an enormous amount of time, and I know it is being considered extremely carefully.
Companies should know better than to behave in this way. All companies operate best when their employees are working there with enthusiasm, and these types of tactics are very bad for morale in businesses, so I would say to my capitalist friends, “Behave well as a business, and your business will do better.”

Kevin Brennan: When we come back after Easter, can we have a statement on Yemen? I know the Leader of the House will understand how it must feel for the family of Luke Symons when they hear about incidents of detention centres being attacked in Sanaa and when they hear about the cut in aid to Yemen and the continuing supply of arms to Saudi Arabia, but most of all their and my concern is for the welfare of my constituent held captive in Sanaa by the Houthis.
If we cannot have that statement, will the Leader of the House encourage the Foreign Office at least to be a bit more active in providing me with briefings and updates on what is going on in relation to this matter? I have asked for one and not received one. He is always assiduous, so through his good offices, will he give them a nudge and seek to provide me with an updated report?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I can absolutely give the second commitment that the hon. Gentleman asks for. The Government are working closely with our partners in the region to ensure that Mr Symons is released and reunited with his family as soon as possible. We obviously do not have direct representation there. It may be helpful if I tell hon. and right hon. Members that after this session every week, I write to relevant Ministers with any issues that have been brought up, and obviously I particularly emphasise ones of this kind, because I think hon. and right hon. Members have a right to be kept informed about their constituents and to make representations for them. It is our basic obligation as Members to seek redress of grievance for those we represent, and I will always do anything I can to help in that regard.

Greg Smith: Large-scale infrastructure projects place a huge burden on parish and town councils that cover the areas of construction  of those projects. Parish councillors in my constituency tell me that dealing with local matters relating to projects such as HS2 and East West Rail has become something like a full-time job. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking our parish and town councils for all the work they do and find time for a debate in Government time to recognise the additional burden of big infrastructure on those local councils and to find a better way to support them?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: With projects of this scale, local effects will unfortunately be unavoidable. The Department for Transport encourages close co-operation and engagement between such projects and local councils, including parish councils. The HS2 Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), has been looking at this issue closely and, as set out in detail in the parliamentary report published last week, has taken a number of further steps to improve HS2 Ltd’s approach. The Rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), is also supportive of the recently introduced monthly meeting between the leaders of Buckinghamshire Council, East West Rail Company, Network Rail and the EWR Alliance, which can act as a point of escalation for construction issues if required. As regards a debate in Government time, I am sorry, but I cannot promise that. I do think that an issue concerning the councils, including parish councils, of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) is ideal territory for an Adjournment debate.

Alistair Carmichael: May we have an early statement from the Secretary of State for Transport on air safety? For whatever reason, the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU did not include access to the EU EGNOS—European geostationary navigation overlay service—satellite system, which is used to provide 3D glide slope for instrument approach procedures for planes coming in to land at airports. As a consequence, come 21 June, the limits at which planes will be allowed to approach a runway without visual contact will be significantly increased, which will be particularly acute across the highlands and islands, at exactly the same time as we will be wanting more people, hopefully, to come back and start to visit us again. We need a memorandum of understanding with the EU on that, and we really need to hear from the Secretary of State for Transport what he intends to do if we do not have one.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I cannot claim that I know a great deal about that particular issue, which may not surprise the House, but this is absolutely one of those things, as I said to an hon. Gentleman earlier, that I will take up with the relevant Minister, and I will try to get the right hon. Gentleman a detailed response to what sounds a very serious matter. Obviously we want transport to resume as safely as possible, so that tourists are able to come back. He raises an important point, and I shall do my best to get a detailed answer.

Lee Anderson: My best friend is a 12-year-old west highland white terrier called Alfie, and life without him would be almost unbearable. Yet every time my wife takes him out for a walk she is scared to death that he will be stolen. That is a shocking, shocking crime and should carry a mandatory jail sentence, in my  opinion, and my residents would back me up on that. So, for the third time today, could I ask my right hon. Friend to please reassure me that he will do all he can to ensure a debate on that important issue in the House, or ask the Government to make a statement on the matter and help protect man’s best friend?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is clear from this session that pet theft is of considerable concern to hon. Members. This session is often a straw in the wind as to the issues that are of political importance, because Members raise whatever they want, and when you get three questions on the same subject it shows that there is public concern. The Government are doing the things that I set out previously, including providing the additional police force, but people ought to feel confident going for a walk, and it is unreasonable, unfair and unpleasant that my hon. Friend’s wife, Mrs Anderson, does not feel safe going for walks for worry that her dog will be stolen. We want people to feel secure taking their dogs for walks, and I have heard the concerns of the House.

Points of Order

Diana R. Johnson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank Mr Speaker for granting me the opportunity to raise this point of order regarding the NHS contaminated blood scandal, the biggest treatment disaster in NHS history. The vast majority of Members of Parliament will have at least one constituent infected—or have had one constituent, because those infected die at an average of one every 96 hours.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that it took many years of cross-party campaigning before the NHS infected blood inquiry was announced in 2017. Alongside the public inquiry, the Government agreed to undertake a review of financial support available to those infected and affected, and to work on a compensation framework if later required by the inquiry’s findings.
Last week, Caroline Wheeler of The Sunday Times reported that Ministers planned to make a statement this week on financial support for infected blood victims. A written ministerial statement appeared this morning, on the last day before the Easter recess and, crucially, after the deadline to secure an urgent question today. This leaves no opportunity for Members’ questioning of a Minister in the House for at least two weeks.
The failure to make an oral ministerial statement in the House today, allowing Members to ask questions, may not be disorderly, but it is grossly insensitive to people who have suffered so much for so long at the hands of the state. I seek your advice on how we can get this issue discussed in the House at the very earliest opportunity.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the right hon. Lady for notice of her point of order. As she well knows, and as Mr Speaker has said many times, it is a matter for the Government whether they make a written or oral ministerial statement; the occupant of the Chair has no say in that matter.
The right hon. Lady asks the question always asked during points of order, but I appreciate that it is a way for her to bring to the attention of the House and those on the Treasury Bench her concerns about how this matter can be brought before the House. There are, of course, many ways in which the right hon. Lady can do that: she can seek an Adjournment debate; ask for an urgent question; go to the Backbench Business Committee; urge a Select Committee to have an inquiry; and write to Ministers. I think she knows about all those. I am quite sure that, given her experience and determination—for which she is renowned in this particular matter—she will find one of those ways of bringing this matter to the Floor of the House.

Seema Malhotra: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank you and Mr Speaker for allowing me to make this point of order.
On 8 March, in Department for Work and Pensions questions, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), told me that in Feltham and Heston there were 77 kickstart vacancies and 11 starts. She also shared kickstart data for Tower Hamlets with my hon. Friend  the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali). On 17 March, I tabled a written question asking for kickstart placements and vacancies by constituency; I was surprised to be told that that data is not currently available by constituency.
Three other colleagues—my hon. Friends the Members for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard)—have been similarly rebuffed when asking about their own constituencies. MPs have also been told that the Department is unable to publish data below regional level.
Madam Deputy Speaker, if the Minister told me figures for my constituency in this House, the data does exist and could be published. Given that young people’s jobs have been worst hit, transparency matters so that Parliament knows where opportunities are reaching and where they are not. Could you advise me on how Members can seek to get this important data published by the DWP?

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. As I said to her right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) a few moments ago, it is not for the Chair to comment on the accuracy or completeness of ministerial answers; that is a matter entirely for Ministers. But it is fairly obvious that if the Department holds the information that she has requested, it should provide that information to her.
The hon. Lady has used her point of order to draw her concerns to the attention of the House and Ministers. Of course, she will also be aware that the Procedure Committee monitors departmental performance. I suggest that she considers drawing the matter to the attention of the Procedure Committee if the Department’s response remains unsatisfactory.

Owen Thompson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In answer to my question about the ACAS report on fire and rehire, the Leader of the House indicated that the report had been presented to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy a week ago. However, it has come to my attention that a parliamentary answer to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) said that the report was actually presented on 17 February—a number of weeks ago.
I have no doubt that the Leader of the House did not intentionally give the wrong date. However, given the pressing deadlines involved, can you give me advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how we can further press the issue to make sure that it is reasonably considered and that action is taken urgently?

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very reasonable point of order.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: indicated assent.

Eleanor Laing: I can see that the Leader of the House agrees that it is reasonable.
I may be mistaken, but after the hon. Gentleman asked his question of the Leader of the House I am pretty sure that I heard the Leader of the House give an  answer to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) saying that he had been slightly mistaken about dates and confirming that the relevant date was in fact 17 February.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Yes, that is what I understand from the questions I received. I thought that the hon. Gentleman indicated a week ago and then the hon. Member for City of Chester indicated 17 February. I think, but this is not an absolute statement on oath, that 17 February is the accurate date.

Eleanor Laing: Thank you. I heard the Leader of the House say that in answer to the hon. Member for City of Chester and I hope that the matter has now been cleared up. I thank the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for giving us all the opportunity to make sure that the information given here in the Chamber is always accurate.
I will now suspend the House for three minutes in order that arrangements can be made for the next item of business.
Sitting suspended.

Bill Presented

Scottish Parliament (Disqualification of Members of the House of Commons) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Alyn Smith, supported by David Linden, Kirsty Blackman, Drew Hendry, Marion Fellows, Alan Brown, Deidre Brock, Gavin Newlands, Amy Callaghan and Brendan O’Hara, presented a Bill to amend the Scotland Act 1998 to provide that Members of the House of Commons may not be Members of the Scottish Parliament; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 282).

Business of the House (Today)

Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16(1) (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on—
(a) the Motions in the name of Secretary Matt Hancock relating to
(i) the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps) (England) Regulations 2021 (SI, 2021, No. 364),
(ii) the Coronavirus Act 2020 (Review of temporary provisions) (No. 2), and
(iii) the Coronavirus Act 2020 (One-year status report), and
(b) the Motion in the name of Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg relating to Proceedings during the pandemic (No. 6)
not later than 5.00 pm; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments to the Motion referred to in (b) above selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Scott Mann.)

Coronavirus

[Relevant documents: Oral evidence taken before the Science and Technology Committee on 17 February and 9 March, on UK science, research and technology capability and influence in global disease outbreaks, HC 136; e-petition 313310, Repeal the Coronavirus Act 2020, and e-petition 561995, Repeal Coronavirus Act and end all Covid-19 restrictions; First Report of the Women and Equalities Committee, Unequal Impact? Coronavirus, disability and access to services: interim Report on temporary provisions in the Coronavirus Act, HC 386, and the Government response, HC 1172; Fourth Report of the Women and Equalities Committee, Unequal Impact? Coronavirus, disability and access to services: full Report, HC 1050; and Eighth Report of the Procedure Committee, Back to the future? Procedure after coronavirus restrictions, HC 1282.]

Eleanor Laing: We now come to motion 2, on public health, which, with the permission of the House, we will debate with motions 3 to 5.
Before I call the Secretary of State to move motion 2 and speak to the other motions, I can confirm that Mr Speaker has not selected any of the amendments. I should also mention that there will be a limit on Back-Bench speeches not of three minutes initially, but of four minutes.

Matthew Hancock: I beg to move,
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps) (England) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 364), dated 22 March 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22 March, be approved.

Eleanor Laing: With this we shall discuss the following:
Motion 3—Coronavirus Act 2020 (Review of Temporary Provisions) (No. 2)—
That the temporary provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 should not yet expire.
Motion 4—Coronavirus Act 2020 (One-year Status Report)—
That this House has considered the one-year report on the status on the non-devolved provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020.
Motion 5—Proceedings during the Pandemic (No. 6)—
That the Order of 2 June 2020 (Proceedings during the pandemic (No. 2)), as amended on 1 July and 22 October 2020, the Order of 4 June 2020 (Virtual participation in proceedings during the pandemic), as amended on 1 July, 2 September, 22 October and 30 December 2020, the Order of 3 November 2020 (Proxy voting during the pandemic (No. 2)) and the Order of 25 February (Sittings in Westminster Hall during the pandemic) shall have effect until 21 June.

Matthew Hancock: Over the past year, we have all  been engaged in a monumental national effort to fight coronavirus, which has required the House to take extraordinary measures in response to this extraordinary threat. Today, we debate our road map to recovery and what is legally needed to take the cautious but irreversible path out of this pandemic. We propose to remove some of the emergency powers that the House put in place a year ago and set the steps of the road map that my right  hon. Friend the Prime Minister has set out into law, replacing the existing national lockdown. We are able to take this action and propose these measures thanks to the perseverance of the British people in following the rules and the success story that is our UK vaccination programme, which has now vaccinated more than 28.6 million people—55% of all adults in the United Kingdom.
Hospitalisations are now at their lowest point since September and are down 90% since the peak. To put this into context, there are today just over 5,000 people in hospital with covid. At the peak, just two months ago, there were just under 5,000 new admissions with covid each day. Deaths are now at their lowest point since October and they are down 94% since the peak. The research published today shows that our vaccination programme has already saved the lives of more than 6,000 people across the UK, up to the end of February.
The success of the vaccination programme means that we are now able to carefully replace the short-term protection of the restrictions that we have all endured, with the long-term protection provided by the vaccine. Our goal is to be cautious yet irreversible. I must tell the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, that while I am still, by nature, an optimist, there remain causes for caution. Cases are rising in some areas and they are rising among those under 18. There are early signs of cases flattening among the working-age population, too.
I am delighted that uptake of the vaccine is now 95% among over-60s and that protection against dying from the vaccine is around 85%. Both of those figures, 95% uptake and 85% protection, are higher than we could have hoped for, but while we are confident that we have broken the link between the number of cases and the hospitalisations and deaths that previously inevitably followed, no vaccine is perfect and take-up is not 100%, so that link, while broken, is not yet severed.
New variants also remain a risk because we do not yet know with confidence the impact of the vaccine against the new variants. We all want these next few months to be a one-way route to freedom, so as we restore the freedoms that we all cherish, we must do so in a way that does not put our NHS at risk.

Mark Harper: On that point about the take-up and the efficacy, one thing that the chief medical officer said was that the timings in the road map were driven by some of the modelling that the Government had seen. The assumptions behind that modelling I think came from February and are much more pessimistic than what we now know about take-up and efficacy. Can the Secretary of State ensure that that modelling is redone with the new assumptions to see whether that would justify a faster unlocking of the country, which is important to save jobs, save businesses and maximise the economic future of our young people?

Matthew Hancock: While modelling is obviously something that is looked at, the observation of the actual data is I think the best guide. The good news is that the number of deaths has fallen very sharply and continues to fall sharply, and the number of hospitalisations has fallen sharply—not quite as sharply as deaths, but nevertheless sharply. Critically, the link has broken, so the weight that we place on the number of cases as an indicator is not nearly as great as it was before, because it used to be inevitable that that led to hospitalisations and deaths.
The reason for the timings in the road map is so that, after each step, we can see its impact before being able, carefully, to take the next step. That is the core reason for the timings in the road map—four weeks to see the impact of a step, and then one week to give warning of the next step. It is that, rather than the modelling, that I put the stress on for the timings in the road map.

Mark Harper: To come back very briefly on that final point, if deaths and hospitalisations are what is important, is the Secretary of State able to confirm the information that was published in The Times this morning on the modelling by SPI-M—the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling, the Government’s advisory committee —showing a dramatic reduction in hospitalisations and deaths taking place over the next week and throughout April? That really drives my assumption that we could go a bit faster. Is he able to confirm that for the House?

Matthew Hancock: I have not seen that article in The Times—I have read parts of The Times, but not that bit—so I cannot confirm, but I can write to my right hon. Friend with details on this point. However, I would stress that the focus only on modelling is not really where the ultimate judgment on the timings of the road map is; it is about being able to observe progress and then take the next step with confidence. The central point here is that cases may well rise. In fact, I would say cases are likely to rise, not least with schools going back. The critical thing is that the automaticity—cases going up having an impact on hospitalisations—is no longer there. However, if cases got extremely high, even with a much weaker link from cases to hospitalisations, that is something we clearly have to guard against and it is set out in test 3 of the Prime Minister’s four tests.

Rupa Huq: The Health Secretary has talked of protections for the over-60s. Can he appreciate why, for some of our constituents who crave a foreign holiday, it looks very odd that a Stanley Johnson loophole seems to have been negotiated, so that someone over 60 with their own property abroad can get around that? Can he also appreciate that a lot of our constituents think that these measures—the Prime Minister used to talk about women who look like bank robbers—have now mandated us all to wear these masks?

Matthew Hancock: I am not quite sure what point the hon. Member is making, but this is what I was going on to say. The critical point where I ended the exchange with my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) is that we must restore the freedoms that we all cherish, but in a way that does not put the NHS at risk. Throughout the crisis, we have successfully protected the NHS, and I am delighted to be able to inform the House that there are now record numbers of NHS doctors and NHS nurses in England. New data published this morning show that there are over 300,000 nurses in the NHS in England for the first time in its history. So we have protected our NHS and we are delivering our commitments to it. Nobody wants to have to reimpose measures, as we have sadly seen elsewhere in Europe only this week, so we must follow this cautious and, we hope, irreversible road map.

William Wragg: My right hon. Friend mentions data on occurrences within the NHS. Does the NHS have data to suggest how many   people have, sadly, died from covid in NHS hospitals three weeks after receiving their first dose of a covid vaccine?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, the data on the impact of the vaccine—including side effects from the vaccine and the rare occasions when, sadly, people die after having had the vaccine—are published by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. If there are any data in this area that are not published but my hon. Friend would like to be published, he can write to me and I would be very happy to look into publishing them. Essentially, we take an attitude of being as transparent as possible, because there are side effects to the vaccine as there are to all pharmaceutical drugs and we want to be completely open and transparent about those side effects—essentially to reassure people that the risks are extremely low.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend answered a question from me on this very subject by saying that the data was not available. I cannot understand why crucial data—such as the number of people who have been vaccinated for more than three weeks, who are then admitted to hospital and subsequently die—is not collected. Why is that?

Matthew Hancock: This data has been collated recently; it is in the so-called SIREN study from Public Health England. I am very happy to look into exactly the data that my hon. Friends are looking for and, if we have it, to publish it. I think we have what has been asked for, but let us try to do this by correspondence to ensure that we get exactly what is being looked for. On the face of it, my hon. Friend is absolutely right; it is exactly the sort of thing that we are looking at, but I want to make sure that we get the details right.
As I was just saying, each step of the road map is guided by the data and the progress against the four tests. We were able to take the first step on 8 March, when we allowed the return of face-to-face education in schools, relaxed the rules on two people gathering outside for recreation and allowed care home residents to nominate a single regular visitor, supported by regular testing and personal protective equipment.
The regulations before the House today ease restrictions further—again, in a careful and controlled way. First, they allow us to put in place the remaining measures of step 1, which will come into force on Monday. That means that the “stay at home” rule will end and six people or two households will be able to meet outdoors, and outdoor sports can resume. The regulations also commit the remaining steps of our road map into law, so that we can gradually ease restrictions at the right time before eventually removing them all together, which we hope to be able to do on 21 June.

Richard Holden: My constituents have been in touch to raise concerns about these measures being in place for longer than absolutely necessary, but they have also been raising concerns about long covid. Will the Secretary of State respond to my constituents on both issues, and explain to the House what he and his Department are looking into to better understand the effects of long covid on the population?

Matthew Hancock: We clearly want to lift these measures as soon as is reasonably possible. My goal is that we will eventually see covid as something that has to be managed rather like flu. We do not put in place restrictions on normal life to tackle flu, but we do have a regular vaccination programme. With vaccines, that is where I hope we will be able to get to.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Matthew Hancock: I just want to answer my hon. Friend’s second point before taking further interventions. His point about long covid is important. In fact, the National Institute for Health Research, which has done a brilliant job during the pandemic, has today put out a £20 million call for further research and diagnostics, including patient and public involvement, so that long covid can be properly understood, and people who catch covid and have symptoms over a long time—which I know can be deeply debilitating for some people—can get the support they need on the NHS.

Greg Clark: My right hon. Friend mentions the fact that we live with flu every winter and act against it. Has he made an assessment of what level of hospital admissions would be consistent with protecting the NHS?

Matthew Hancock: It is very difficult to know in advance. At the peak of this pandemic, we had 38,000 patients in hospital across the UK at any one time with covid, but of course that meant that other non-urgent treatments had to be delayed. There is a question of the trade-off and how much treatment is delayed. In a bad flu season, elective operations and non-urgent treatments are delayed. That is one way in which the NHS manages through a difficult flu season in winter. Measures like that will be necessary if we have an increase in covid cases.
If we have learned anything in the last year, we have learned that we have to live with risk as a society. That is a reality, so the goal and the strategy are to invest in the NHS so that it has more capacity, make sure that it can expand capacity and make sure that we have the vaccine effort and the continued efforts that people will no doubt take personal responsibility for, such as mask-wearing—and people will be highly likely do that to protect themselves and others, after the experience we have just had. I want to get to a point of personal responsibility plus the vaccine plus the test and trace programme, so that people can be regularly tested and we can use that to break the chains of transmission. I want to manage covid in that way, while restoring our freedoms. That is the best way, once we have made our way carefully down this road.

Steven Baker: What my right hon. Friend has just said is extremely encouraging, and I am very grateful. Will he confirm that the reason that step 4 is not in the regulations is that it does not need any regulations? It is freedom from these regulations.

Matthew Hancock: Yes—that is a very good way of putting it; in fact, it was on the next page of my script. It is a pleasure to be as one with my hon. Friend after all this time, and I hope very much that he joins us in the Lobby later.

Steven Baker: No comment.

Matthew Hancock: I am an optimist, as I just said.
Let me carry on detailing the purpose of these measures. Step 2 allows non-essential retail and personal care services to reopen. We have said that that will happen not before 12 April. It will also allow the reopening of leisure services, indoor leisure such as gyms, and self-contained accommodation. Step 2 also sees the reopening—outdoors—of our pubs and restaurants, which I know so many of us are looking forward to.
Step 3 will lift restrictions on meetings outdoors, subject to a limit of 30, and up to six people, or two households, will be able to meet inside. Indoor hospitality, indoor entertainment and all other types of accommodation will be able to open their doors once again. Step 4 will begin no earlier than 21 June. This is the final stage in the road map, because, bolstered by a mammoth testing effort and capacity and by the protection of the vaccination, that is when we aim to remove all legal limits on social contact and restore our freedoms once again.
I know how hard these restrictions have been. I know they have meant missing out on special moments with loved ones and putting important events on hold, and they have also taken a significant economic toll, so we do not want to keep them in place any longer than we judge we have to. I am therefore pleased to say that these road map regulations will expire at the end of June.
Let me turn now to the renewal of the temporary provisions in the Coronavirus Act 2020, which are also before the House today. The Act has been a crucial part of our response to this virus. It helped us to protect the NHS in its hour of need, to keep public services, courts and local democracy running and to offer the financial assistance that has been a lifeline to so many people.
Some provisions in the Act require renewal every six months. If we were to remove the temporary provisions in the Act altogether, we would lose, for instance, measures protecting commercial tenants and renters from eviction, we would not be able to run virtual court hearings, which are an integral part of maintaining the rule of law, and people would not be able to receive statutory sick pay for the full period for which they are required to self-isolate. So there are some important technical provisions that allow for the running of public services, given the social distancing we have at the moment.

Dawn Butler: The word “crucial” has been doing a lot of heavy lifting in the Minister’s speech. Is it not correct that if these measures are voted down today, the Government would have 21 days to bring a new Bill to Parliament? Is it not also correct that a lot of what we are relying on comes from other legislation and not actually the Coronavirus Act?

Matthew Hancock: Absolutely. The main provisions under which we put in place the lockdown come from the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, not the Coronavirus Act. The mainstay in terms of the Coronavirus Act is to allow us to support people and public services. For instance, furlough is in the Coronavirus Act; that is not up for renewal, because it is a permanent part—it is for the full period of the Act. Nevertheless, in terms of being able to pay statutory sick pay to people when they are self-isolating, I am asking the House today to renew that provision, and I think that we must.
I want to stress this point to those who are understandably concerned about the extent of powers in the Coronavirus Act. Although the Act remains essential and we are seeking the renewal of elements of it, we have always said that we will only retain powers as long as they are necessary. They are exceptional powers. They are approved by the House for use in the most extreme of situations and they must be seen in that light. Because of the progress we have made, we are now able to expire and suspend a whole raft of measures in the Act, just as we expired provisions after the previous review six months ago.
We propose to expire 12 provisions in the Act: section 15, which allowed local authorities to ease some responsibilities around social care; section 24, which allowed biometric data held for national security purposes to be retained for an extra six months; five provisions that required information for businesses and people involved in the food supply chain; section 71, which allowed a single Treasury Minister to sign on behalf of all Treasury Commissioners—I know the Whips Office is looking forward to getting its signatures out again. There are two provisions that created a new form of emergency volunteering leave, which we have not needed and are retiring. Section 79 extended arrangements for business improvement districts and section 84 allowed for the postponement of General Synod elections. Those are not needed anymore and we are therefore not seeking to extend them. We only extend that which we think is necessary.

Munira Wilson: I welcome the expiry of some measures, particularly the social care easements, which were discriminatory against the most vulnerable in our society. Will the Secretary of State accept that under the Coronavirus Act we have had 250 people wrongfully charged? The Act is full of far-reaching powers that are not needed. The practical measures he talked about can be brought forward in the next 21 days. As he suggested, the fake news that furlough cannot go on without renewing the Act is just untrue, because that is a permanent provision.

Matthew Hancock: Furlough is provided for under the Act. As I just said, it is a permanent provision of the Act, but the statutory sick pay is not and I think we should be giving people statutory sick pay to help them to self-isolate.

Steve Brine: The Secretary of State is asking for a further six months under the Act, which is all that we can do. The Prime Minister has been talking in the last few days about the need for section 2, for instance, on the emergency registration of nurses, to help us to deal with the backlog. The same is true of sections 53, 54, 55 and 56 with respect to the courts. In six months’ time, will we need that? Will we have dealt with the backlog in the health service and the courts, or will he need to renew this again in six months?

Matthew Hancock: That is a good question. The truth is that we have a record number of nurses in the NHS, over 300,000, in part because the Act allowed for their emergency registration much more swiftly than previously. Parts of the Act have allowed us to do good things like that, which everybody would like to see. When we come to retire the Act, which we must within one year and preferably within six months, we will need to make sure  we can continue to do that sort of thing to ensure that nurses can be enrolled into the NHS as easily as possible. I cannot answer whether we will be retiring it in six months. My preference would be yes, but given the last year I think a prediction would be hasty.

Steve Brine: Further to that point, may I make a suggestion to my right hon. Friend? The expansion of the availability of live links for criminal proceedings will be put into the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, so that will not be needed. The Secretary of State is bringing forward a new health Bill during the new Session. Would that be an opportunity to update that?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, that is an important point. We have just started the process of working on that. If measures have worked well and we want to keep them because they are good, can we put them permanently on the statute book? That should, properly, take the process of normal primary legislation. My hon. Friend mentions a forthcoming health and care Bill. I look to the Leader of the House and I can see that he is smiling, although I cannot, of course, say whether that Bill will be brought forward until we have a proper sign-off—it is nice to see him looking so handsome there. [Laughter.]Our aim would be to get that on to the statute book, should we bring it forward, in the middle of next year, so there is a shorter-term question of the handling from here to there. We need to do that with the best administrative efficiency that we can, but I am talking here about the less controversial elements of the Act.

Mark Harper: I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s judgment and I will try not to test his patience again. He mentioned that there are some very valuable administrative measures. If they were the only things being rolled forward, I do not think people would mind, although my reading of the Act is that the registration provisions for medical staff are in section 89, in the permanent part of the Act rather than the temporary part. The controversial parts include the police powers to detain potentially infectious persons, which the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) referred to, and which have been used unlawfully on a number of occasions. It says in the one-year review of the Act that those are intended to be long-term powers and my right hon. Friend has just suggested that those provisions might be rolled forward a further six months. That is why so many of us are worried. These are extraordinary provisions, not for normal times, and they should be expired at the earliest possible opportunity.

Matthew Hancock: I actually agree with my right hon. Friend that they should be expired at the earliest possible opportunity. The challenge, especially as we lift measures on all of us, is if there are, for instance, new variants that we need to pin down absolutely—in the same way that a new variant came about in Liverpool and we tackled it. We have not seen any new cases of it, not only because of fantastic local work, but because in lockdown that is easier. Having these very targeted interventions for now is important. Therefore, we have made the judgment that we should propose that they are necessary for now. I know that we disagree on that point, but I suggest that by voting against all these renewals, a whole load of valuable things that he and I would agree on would not be renewed, were that vote to go through.

Steven Baker: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Matthew Hancock: I will just make a little more progress.
We are also suspending three further provisions, although they may need to be restored and called on if required. As well as that, we have completed the six-month statutory review on covid-secure regulations for businesses, the collection of contact details and self-isolation, and concluded that they remain necessary at this time. The Coronavirus Act is temporary, time-limited and proportionate to the threat we face, and we are keeping measures only where they are necessary as we exit this pandemic, and then we can do away with this Act for good.
Throughout the pandemic, this House has also found a way to meet. I cannot wait for the time when this Chamber will be full and rowdy once again as the cockpit of our democracy, where we can almost literally take the temperature of the nation. I may pay for that when I say something particularly unfortunate, but I prefer it, and I think everybody in this House does. After widespread consultation and on the basis of detailed public health advice, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has tabled a motion to extend virtual participation and the current proxy voting arrangements until 21 June, the proposed date for the removal of all legal restrictions on social contact. We thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and through you the other Deputy Speakers, Mr Speaker and the House authorities for the work that has been done in these unprecedented times to keep people safe here.
The measures before the House today show how we will put the pandemic behind us and restore life to normal. We are on the road to recovery, but we are not at the finish line yet, and by passing these measures, we can keep protecting lives and livelihoods while we get our nation back on its feet once more.

Jon Ashworth: On a specific point, which I rather hoped the Secretary of State would cover but I anticipate will not, we are obviously very concerned about variants in Europe and the surge that we are seeing there. Is it the Government’s intention to impose restrictions on those coming in from France or Germany—to add either France or other European countries to the red list—or to impose testing on hauliers coming into the country?

Matthew Hancock: All these questions will be answered as part of the work of the global travel taskforce, which the Prime Minister has announced will be published on 5 April, so I recommend that the right hon. Gentleman waits until then. In answering that final question, I commend the motions to the House.

Jon Ashworth: I appreciate the Secretary of State allowing me to intervene on him at the end of his speech.
It is right that this week we remember all those who have lost their lives to this horrific virus, and that we reflect on the grief of all those who have lost loved ones. Across the House we pay tribute to those who put themselves in the face of danger—our NHS, care workers, and all our public servants and key workers who have kept our society functioning.
More than 126,000 people have died. In social care, the impact has been devastating, with more than 30,000 deaths. Residents have been left isolated and frightened, deprived of visits from their loved ones for months on end. Across the NHS, cancer patients have had surgery cancelled and screenings postponed, and more than 300,000 people have been waiting for more than a year for treatment. A study today from the University of Leicester suggested that 71% of those patients who were hospitalised and discharged have not fully recovered after five months, and 20% have been left with a new disability. The long-term impact of covid is likely to be severe for many people.
Our NHS staff face burn-out, and children have lost months of education and social interaction. They risk being among the biggest victims of the pandemic. Families are worried and anxious. Our NHS has suffered. Public health funding has been cut for many years, which left our public health services without the capacity they needed when the pandemic hit. The poorest communities saw more than double the death rate in the first wave of the virus, and in ethnic minority communities the death rate has been up to 50% higher. It did not have to be like that. A healthier more equal society would have weathered the storms better. We could have planned better, acted more quickly, and responded more comprehensively.
Our vaccination programme has been successful, and again I thank everybody who has been involved in that. But the reality is that we are not yet out of the woods. The pandemic still has some way to go, and it is right that we proceed with caution and do not become complacent. Vaccination alone does not make us bullet-proof. It makes us safer, but we are not safe until we build population immunity and roll out vaccinations everywhere across the world.
Last week I asked the Secretary of State about the vaccination of children, and he rightly said that we had to wait for the research and clinical trials. Yesterday it was suggested that the vaccination of children could start as soon as August, if safety requirements are met. I hope Ministers are commissioning the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation to produce a plan for how children’s vaccinations could roll out. That will be an important way to drag down transmission.
A third wave is surging across Europe, much of which is due to the B117 Kent variant. Increasingly, we are seeing higher prevalence of other variants, and as the Secretary of State rightly said, we are uncertain about whether they will evade the vaccines. We therefore have to be careful and proceed with caution. Although we are making extraordinary progress in this country with our vaccination rates and in bringing infection rates down, we know that the virus mutates and that it could come back and hit us even harder, particularly at a time when a considerable amount of virus is circulating.
Infections are still running at more than 5,000 day, and last week the Office for National Statistics estimated that 160,000 people in England had the infection in the past week. We must still work hard to break transmission chains and shut down opportunities for the virus to replicate. Given the loss of life we have suffered, and the risk of mutations that could set us back, we must have zero tolerance of letting the virus rage unchecked. For that reason, Labour accepts that restrictions must stay in place, and we will support the renewal of the Coronavirus Act 2020 and the public health regulations.
We do not support that renewal with any enthusiasm or relish—quite the opposite. Neither the Secretary of State nor I came into politics to put powers such as these on the statute book. These powers curtail so many basic freedoms and deregulate so many basic standards for which our forebears fought so hard and that so many people have taken for granted.
I am also acutely conscious that this deadly virus spreads rapidly, exploits ambiguity and thrives on inequality. Suppressing the virus does depend on social distancing measures, which is why we need them on the statute book, but it depends on other measures as well, such as properly isolating the sick and paying them fully to isolate. It depends on having proper community-led contact tracing, both retrospective and looking forward. It depends on investing in science, so that we have not just the vaccines but the therapeutics that will lead us out of this crisis.
Restrictions in themselves are a blunt tool, but sadly they will be needed, given that the virus is still surging across the world. That is why we supported the measures 12 months ago and will support them again today. Indeed, it was 12 months ago that I met regularly with the Secretary of State. It was just over 12 months ago that I sat round a very small table in the Prime Minister’s office in Downing Street with the Prime Minister and the then Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), alongside advisers such as Dominic Cummings and others, to negotiate the content of the Act.
We pressed for statutory sick pay from day one, and that is in the Act. We think that the Government should go further—it is not enough, but at least we have statutory sick pay from day one. We pressed for a ban on evictions for those in rent arrears, and again, the Prime Minister gave us that concession. We pressed for furlough as well in that meeting. On each of those, I want the Government to go much, much further, and it is a monstrous failure that decent sick pay and financial support have not been provided over the past 12 months, but it would be churlish of me not to recognise that we had that meeting and that concessions were offered as a result of it.
Even though we supported the Act 12 months ago, I raised at the Dispatch Box a number of concerns about its content and said that, in different circumstances, with a proper process whereby Members could table amendments in good time, we would have hoped for better scrutiny of it. We raised concerns about the easements of the Care Act 2014, and I am pleased that those clauses will be removed. We raised objections to the Coronavirus Act giving the Secretary of State powers to change section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014. I understand that those powers have not been used since July last year, but we remain concerned that they appear still to be in the Act. I ask the Secretary of State and Ministers to reflect on that and to take those clauses out of the Act.
We also raised concerns about the more draconian elements of the Act. Indeed, I said at the Dispatch Box a year ago:
“The Bill contains the most draconian powers ever seen in peacetime Britain—powers to detain and test potentially infectious members of the public…powers to shut down gatherings, which could impede the ability to protest against the overall handling of the crisis or against the abuse of the powers themselves. It needs  no explanation and very little imagination to understand the huge potential for abuse that such powers and others in the Bill, however well intended and needed, still give rise.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2020; Vol. 674, c. 59.]
Sadly, we have seen such abuses. Schedule 21, which gives the power to detain potentially infectious persons, has been used for a number of prosecutions, every one of which was found to be unlawful when reviewed by the Crown Prosecution Service. The Joint Committee on Human Rights advised in its report of September last year that
“In the absence of any clear evidence to support the retention of these powers”—
the schedule 21 powers—
“they ought to be repealed.”
We have huge sympathy with that, as do Members who have contributed to the debate so far, and we urge the Government to look again at that schedule.

Steven Baker: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman just said. I am very sorry—although I completely understand it—that my amendment on schedules 21 and 22 was not selected, because we probably would have gone through the Lobby together on it. Could he advise the Secretary of State on whether he would vote to call upon Ministers to remove those schedules, should such a question come before the House?

Jon Ashworth: I understand why we should want to deal with somebody who is infectious and refusing to isolate, but I do not think the schedule and the way it has been applied is needed. That needs to be looked at again.
I make a broader point. Although I understand why the Government have to put, or maintain, these restrictions on the statute book, and I am a strong believer in doing all we can to suppress the virus, drive down infections, cut transmission chains and prevent opportunities for it to replicate—I am a strong believer in putting public health and prevention first—I also think that the Government could have found time for this debate to take place in the House over a couple of days, so that Members could table amendments and we could properly scrutinise the legislation. The Government have a rather handsome majority; I am sure they would have got their way on most things, but who knows? Perhaps through proper scrutiny we might have improved the legislation.

Steven Baker: The hon. Gentleman might know that I have proposed a new public health Act that would use statutory instruments of the type under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, which would allow us to amend them. Would he support that proposal?

Jon Ashworth: The hon. Gentleman invites me to offer endorsement before I have read the details—he is a canny operator in this place—but in principle his suggestion sounds reasonable. I look forward to no doubt receiving an email from him later today, which I will be able to read when I am on the train back to Leicester.

Graham Stringer: My hon. Friend is giving us an interesting insight into the history of the epidemic in this country and the discussions that took place. Would he care to put it on record that we should immediately start an independent  public inquiry into what has gone on so that we can get a full picture? It is a feeble excuse to say that people cannot attend a public inquiry when virtually every Select Committee in this House is having witnesses every day.

Jon Ashworth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we need a public inquiry. Mistakes have been made. There have been examples of poor decision making. When we went into the crisis, our health and social care capacity was less than it should have been, and our public health capacity, after cutbacks over many years, was lacking. We were late going into lockdown a year ago; maybe that was not unreasonable, but we were also late going into lockdown the second and third time. Of course we need a public inquiry to get to the bottom of all these matters.
The Secretary of State is embarking on a reorganisation of the national health service. Yesterday, he made an interesting speech about the future of public health, which he opened by saying that one lesson of this crisis is that we need to set up a national institute of health security. I agree with him on health security, as it happens, but the Government cannot, on the one hand, say that they have learned lessons from this crisis and they need to do X, Y and Z while, on the other hand, the Prime Minister says it is too early to learn lessons and we cannot have an inquiry. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) is absolutely right and I totally agree with him.
We have concerns about schedule 21 of the 2020 Act, but we are where we are, and the procedures of the House leave us little room for manoeuvre, so we will support the Government in the Division Lobby, should it come to that, albeit that we would rather not be in this situation.
Schedule 22 is another schedule that is open to abuse, and I hope the Government will review it and come forward with alternatives; given recent events, the power it contains on gatherings has caused understandable concern. However, some progress is offered by the public health regulations, which expressly include—I think for the first time, and in relation to each step of lockdown relaxation—the right to gather for purposes of protest. That is welcome but, to be frank, it should have been there all along. I have some concerns that, to comply, organisers must take into account, in the words of the regulations,
“any guidance issued by the government relevant to the gathering”,
which means that the Government, through guidance, which could be general or specific to a particular protest, can determine what is allowed by way of protest. I hope the Minister, who is a decent man and a fellow Leicestershire MP, can offer us some guidance on that in his response.
Notwithstanding our concerns, we understand why the 2020 Act must stay on the statute book and why the public health regulations must receive the support of the House today. The pandemic is not over. The virus is surging again. Deaths are increasing across the world after going down for some weeks. Mutations could emerge, which could bounce back at us and set us back considerably. Although they would probably not put us back to square one, they could evade the success of our vaccination programme. A year ago, I concluded my remarks by observing:
“The crisis has exposed the vulnerability of a society in which insecure work is rife, deregulation is king and public services are underfunded. When we come out on the other side, as we will, we have to build a society that puts people first.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2020; Vol. 674, c. 61.]
Rebuilding that society becomes ever more urgent every day.

Rosie Winterton: The four-minute limit will now be on for Back-Bench speeches.

Bill Wiggin: It has certainly been a challenging time for my constituents in North Herefordshire, but their fortitude and community spirit must be highly commended. It is a triumph that vaccines were produced and approved in record time, and this was the silver bullet I have been asking for in all my speeches to this House for so many months. We are all so proud that ours is one of the world’s most successful vaccine roll-outs. Therefore, it is disappointing not to see more justification from the Government as to why the Coronavirus Act needs to be extended for as much as another six months. People must be able to understand the exit from lockdown and understand that these powers are for their own good. This is especially true when the most vulnerable in society have been vaccinated with the first of two jabs against this dreadful disease. Thanks to the work of the vaccine taskforce, the pharmaceutical companies, NHS staff and volunteers, and the regulators, we should all be truly proud of our world-beating vaccine roll-out programme. Herefordshire continues to top the list as one of the areas with the highest vaccination rates. More than 91,000 people in Herefordshire have now received their first dose; nearly 100% of the first five categories laid out by the JCVI have been jabbed, as have more than 61% of the 55 to 59 category. Some 28.6 million people have now been vaccinated in this country, saving nearly 6,000 lives. Nearly 850,000 people received a dose on Saturday alone, and I had my first injection today.
Now we must capitalise on this success and the global opportunities it creates for the UK. The roll-out of the vaccine was always going to change the game, and it is doing the job required of it. Let us not now miss the chances that this golden opportunity presents. We are free from the EU, and we can manoeuvre economically and commercially, safe from covid-19. Globally, this is an almost unique advantage for our businesses, which have been supported throughout the crisis. Now, let us make sure that we can collect on our investment. From 9 March to 15 March, Herefordshire had a covid case rate of 34 per 100,000. When we entered the latest set of restrictions, the county’s rate was at 254 per 100,000. Now, there are only 58 cases in the county. On 10 May 2020, the Prime Minister announced a relaxation of some of the lockdown measures. At that time, the R rate was between 0.5 and 0.9, whereas on 15 March the county had a rate of between 0.6 and 0.9. On 10 May 2020, the seven-day average for hospital admissions was 987.3, whereas now it is 426.1.
The country had restrictions lifted the first time around in very different circumstances last year. Given that children are back at school and the vaccine roll-out is so successful, we are actually in a safer place than we were last May, and because of the good behaviour of the people of this county, we need to capitalise on this.  We are doing so much better than Europe. When we look at the statistics, we see that our record is fantastic. That is why I will dig deep into the loyalty vault and today vote with the Government, but we need to remember that we need to keep the people properly informed as to why these restrictions are necessary. I would love to hear the Government do more of that.

Martyn Day: It is hard to believe that it is a year since the four nations officially went into lockdown. I would like to take this opportunity to say thank you to everyone for everything they have done to support us and the NHS during this unprecedented period: everyone who helped out, be that by staying at home or continuing to go to work to allow others to stay at home, and those who volunteered or supported our NHS. I am truly grateful to everyone whose effort has assisted in whatever way.
Over that year, many have lost loved ones to covid, with 126,000 covid-related deaths to date, and regrettably this figure is still rising. Many will also have lost loved ones to other causes too, and irrespective of whether the losses were related to covid, the grieving process has been even more complex and stressful than it would otherwise have been. My thoughts and prayers are with them too.
On a personal note, I look forward to receiving my first vaccine dose next week. There are some advantages to turning 50 this week, it seems. The continued vaccine roll-out offers us all a realistic hope for the future to come, and I encourage everyone who is offered a vaccine to take up the offer.
I recognise that Governments globally have had to make some very difficult choices over the past year, and unfortunately these difficult choices endure because the virus has not yet gone and will remain with us for some time to come. As it mutates into potentially more harmful variants and we witness countries entering a third wave, current decisions continue to require consideration of competing challenges. That said, I think it fair to say that we are on the road out of lockdown—perhaps not as fast as some would like, but there is a delicate balance and we have to get this right. It is inevitable that as we unlock there will be a rise in cases, so successful roll-out of vaccinations and protection of the most vulnerable is essential.
To that end, I urge that for continued suppression of the virus in the UK as we come out of lockdown, the UK Government should follow the Scottish Government’s example on hotel quarantines. A Public Health England study showed that quarantine-free travel corridors contributed to the spread of coronavirus in the UK last year, with travel from European countries accounting for 86% of imported cases between May and September, and now England’s Deputy Chief Medical Officer has told MPs that 68% of those arriving from France were exempt from quarantine measures. Data shows that South African and Brazilian variants that may be more resistant to vaccines now account for 40% of new cases in some regions of France.
My SNP colleagues and I have repeatedly called for the UK Government to follow Scotland’s lead and bring in supervised quarantine for all arrivals to the UK to prevent the spread of covid-19 variants and save lives, but we have been ignored. If the Prime Minister  will not listen to us, he should at least listen to the experts who are advising that the best way forward is to implement tougher border controls to stop mutant strains being imported to the UK. Huge numbers of people are still being allowed to enter the UK without the proper public health checks. This is dangerous. The Scottish Government have followed the science and done what they can within their power, but this will not stop new strains coming into Scotland via other parts of the UK. We need Westminster to act. By continuing to ignore expert advice, the Westminster Government are putting Scotland and its recovery at risk.
The Prime Minister must stop dithering, heed the calls and bring in a comprehensive system of supervised quarantine for the whole of the UK to stop us going backwards and to save lives. I cannot stress this enough. Having tougher quarantine restrictions for incoming travellers is a scientifically sound, sensible and overwhelmingly publicly supported option. The UK Government must change their position to ensure that imported cases are kept down as we reopen. Given how highly infectious coronavirus is, general anti-virus measures may be needed until a sufficient proportion of the population is vaccinated—perhaps 70% or more.
It is therefore crucial that unlocking must be data and not date driven, so I am somewhat nervous when I hear the PM and Ministers use phrases like “irreversible road map out of lockdown”. This does not sound data driven to me and risks repeating previous mistakes. It was the Prime Minister’s refusal to follow SAGE advice in September that delayed lockdown and allowed the Kent variant to take hold. We must learn those lessons.
Businesses and individuals must continue to be helped through the remainder of restrictions. With health measures and covid restrictions being devolved matters, I stress that while restrictions continue in any part of the UK, support must too. While I welcome the extension of furlough in the spring Budget, it should be continued for as long as it is needed. There must also be sector-specific support for aviation, hospitality and tourism. There is much more I could say on these matters, but time is short and I wish to cover the other motions being considered today.
Those of us in the SNP have serious concerns about the lack of parliamentary scrutiny of the powers contained in the UK Government’s Coronavirus Act, and we raised our concerns on Second Reading. The reviews must not be a rubber-stamping exercise; they must have the teeth to provide meaningful scrutiny, protect human rights and promote public health. It is important that Parliament has its say so we have stronger regulations in place to tackle the biggest health emergency we have seen in our lifetimes. The Government are under huge pressure, but their decisions need the insight and legitimacy of Parliament. I say that not in an attempt to hamstring the Government, but to help them to do better.
Giving Parliament the ability to scrutinise schedules and measures individually would go a long way towards that. That it does not have that ability is, in my opinion, simply unacceptable. For example, the SNP supports repeal of schedule 21, which contains very broad police detention powers. Those have clearly proven problematic, with schedule 21 having been used for 246 prosecutions, every single one of which was found unlawful by the Crown Prosecution Service. That is as unprecedented as   it is unacceptable. I point out that Scottish police have not used schedule 21 powers in Scotland, and that alternative laws could be used in lieu of the schedule.
The Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020 contains a range of measures to ensure scrutiny of Scottish Government decisions, including the publishing of two-monthly reports to the Scottish Parliament on all Scottish statutory instruments made for a reason relating to coronavirus. Also, where possible, provisions in the Scottish coronavirus legislation have been suspended or expired when they have fulfilled their purpose or when the Scottish Government have listened to the compelling views supporting change. The UK Government should consider how similar scrutiny and accountability processes can be introduced in this House.
In conclusion, we are not out of the pandemic yet—it will be with us for some time to come—although I think it is fair to say that we are on the road out of lockdown. But we have to get this right, so more needs to be done to restore public trust in the handling of issues such as covid contracts and in the security of powers contained in the Act. There needs to be reassurance that errors over timing of lockdowns will not occur again. But above everything else, we need to act now to stop new strains coming into the country, so I urge the Government to think again on measures at the borders.

Charles Walker: As sure as eggs are eggs, we will be back here in six months, at the end of September, being asked to renew this legislation again. It is inevitable, and anyone who thinks it is not is deluding themselves. But this afternoon I am not here to talk about eggs; I want to talk about milk.
In the remaining days of this lockdown, I am going to allow myself an act of defiance—my own protest, which others may join me in. I am going to protest about the price of milk. I am not sure whether I think the price is too high or too low—I shall come to that decision later—but for the next few days I am going to walk around London with a pint of milk on my person, because that pint will represent my protest. There may be others who will choose, too, to walk around London with a pint of milk on their person, and perhaps as we walk past each other in the street our eyes might meet. We might even stop for a chat. But I was thinking to myself, and I will continue to think to myself, what will their pint of milk represent—what will their protest  be? Perhaps they will be protesting the roaring back of a mental health demon, brought on by lockdown. Perhaps they will be protesting a renewed battle with anorexia, with depression, with anxiety, with addiction. Perhaps, with their pint of milk, they will be protesting the lack of agency in their life—not being able to make a meaningful decision; maybe a loss of career or job or business. Maybe they will be protesting this country’s slide into authoritarianism, or perhaps they will be protesting the fact that we allow unelected officials to have lecterns at No. 10 to lecture us on how to live our lives. But there might even be people, with their pint of milk, quietly protesting that the route out of lockdown is too slow, or perhaps even too fast. You see, the point is, Madam Deputy Speaker, that these people can project what they like—what concern they have—on to their pint of milk.
My protest, as I said, will be about none of those things. It will simply be about the price of milk and, as I said, for the next few days I will have that pint on me, it will be of symbolic importance to me, and at the end of the day it will be warm, it will have suppurated, and I can choose whether to drink it or pour it away, because it will be robbed of its refreshing elegance by the time it has been in my pocket for 12 hours. And if I pour it away, that might cause people some concern, but it does not matter because it is my pint of milk and it is my protest, and I am not seeking people’s acclaim, endorsement or support in my protest.
And you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I heard and I listened to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This will pass; my protest will pass, the pandemic will pass, and in years to come I will be sitting at my kitchen table—perhaps with my wife, and hopefully my children, who will still want to see me—and I will break away from our excited conversation about the day because I will spot that pint of milk on the table, and that pint shall remind me that the act of protest is a freedom—a freedom, not a right, and unless you cherish freedoms every day, unless you fight for freedoms every day, they end up being taken away from you.

Graham Stringer: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker).
On 7 March in Manchester there was a demonstration, not about milk but about the pay of NHS staff. Karen Reissmann, a political opponent of mine at general elections, was arrested and served with a fine of £10,000. That is an extraordinary attack on civil liberties. The very small group of people at the demonstration were socially distanced. Professor Woolhouse has told the Science and Technology Committee that while no risk is zero, the risk of catching covid-19 in the open air is minimal. We need to stop these restrictions now. That is one of the reasons why I will not be voting for the Government’s proposals.
The second point I want to make is about the Government’s statement that they believe in “data, not dates”. That is a curious thing for them to say, because when you look at what they say, there is no data there. There are dates—lots of dates—and when we have asked Ministers and scientists, how we, as parliamentarians can check the data to see whether things are going well or badly, and so that we can ask for it to be speeded up, no information is given to us. Quite simply, it is a slogan. The Government should be telling us what level of admission into intensive care, what level of infections, what level of hospital admissions and what level of vaccinations could lead to us being freed earlier. That is another reason why I will not be voting for the proposals before us; they are not giving Members of Parliament the tools that they need to deal with this.
My third point, in some ways my most fundamental point, is that we have only ever been given one side of the story. People have died of covid, but if we look at what the cancer charities are telling us at the present time, we will see that at least 50,000 people are expected to die because they have not been tested over the past 12 months. Every area of health service provision has been diminished because of the actions that have been taken on covid.
I cannot get past this point without also highlighting what Patrick Vallance told the Science and Technology Committee. If we had had the same level of intensive care facilities as Germany and France—they have about five times the level that we have—many of those other services could still have been provided. We have lost jobs. School children will suffer for the rest of their lives—hopefully not, but I think that that is the case—because of what has been done to protect people.
I cannot support what the Government propose. The big reason behind it, I suppose, is that Governments can get a taste for authoritarianism and for large powers. I do not want them to get a taste for that. I want this to be the end of it. I would like it to be the end of it today, or in six months, or on 21 June. I think that is unlikely, but I do not want this or any other Government to think that we should give these powers to a Government ever again.

Karen Bradley: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer).
I originally put in to speak in this debate because of the procedural motions. I expected there to be a separate debate on the procedural motions and therefore, as Chair of the Procedure Committee, I was expecting to make some comments. As there other things to debate, I shall mention some other things.
On the procedural motions, the motions that have been tabled are in line with the report issued by my Committee. I do have to point out that there was a division in the Committee. It was the majority of the Committee, not the entire Committee, that wanted to see the motions in the way that they are tabled today, but that is what the Committee decided and I am pleased that the Government have acted on that. Some may think it odd that they are the only motions that we are debating today that actually end on 21 June, but I will come on to that point later.
I also make the point—I hope that those at the Whips’ end of the Treasury Bench will listen to this—that, yesterday in the Liaison Committee, the Prime Minister committed to a debate in the future so that we can consider whether we want to continue with some of the procedural things that we have been doing over the past 12 months. There may also be other procedural changes that we want to make. The Prime Minister committed that such a debate should happen.
In my remaining two-and-a-bit minutes let me move on to the main event of the day. First, let me make the point that, when we pass laws in this place, they are the law of the land. We cannot say that we do not want them to be enforced. We cannot say that we would like them to be ignored. We expect law enforcement and others to enforce the laws that we pass. The difficulty with these laws is that they are contrary to the way that we normally carry out laws. Under the common law system, one is free to do whatever one wishes unless the law says otherwise. These laws are Napoleonic. They give us permission to do certain things. They say that we can do nothing unless we have permission to do it. That has led to enormous confusion, enormous difficulty, for people. It has meant that the interpretation of these rules has been very difficult for all of us. I will just say that, while I understand that we must have the rules in  place—perhaps in a pandemic it is impossible to do them in any other way—we should not be critical of those who enforce the rules that we make in this place if we do not like the way that they are enforced.
Secondly, let me talk about the amount of time that we have for debate. Three-and-a-half hours for a debate on these topics is simply not enough. The length of the call list makes it easy to see just how many Members wish to take part. I say to the Minister for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), that the Government should not be frightened of amendments, because if an amendment is proposed that has the support of the majority of the House and the Government cannot find a good reason to say no to it, it is probably a good amendment. I suggest that the Government think about providing more time for debate and more opportunities to amend. I do not agree with every single thing in these measures, but I will support the Government today. The Secretary of State’s opening remarks were very conciliatory, and they set out very clearly the direction of travel, and I will therefore support the Government.
I want to make a final point about managing public expectation. I had my vaccine on Saturday—I was  one of the large number of people who did so—and one of the volunteers in my vaccine centre said to me, “Now you’ve had the vaccine, you can vote against the stupid restrictions.” People are expecting that these restrictions will end. They are queuing up in droves to get their vaccine, because that is the end of these lockdowns. That is their passport out of the pandemic, and the Government need to make that happen.

Jeremy Corbyn: A year ago, the House gave the Government unprecedented powers to curtail and limit economic activity and our normal liberties, and placed huge responsibilities on our public services to deliver us from the dangers of the pandemic. A year later, we are not properly scrutinising this legislation. We are not apparently debating any amendments to it, and we have been given a take-it -or-leave-it approach by the Government, which is unacceptable in any democracy. Earlier this week, the renowned human rights group Liberty produced a very good document that suggested a better, alternative way of approaching this, and my great friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) introduced it earlier this week as a Bill in this House.
I represent a densely populated inner-urban constituency. My local authority, Islington Council, my local hospital, the Whittington Hospital, and others have performed wonders during the past year in supporting people through this desperately difficult time. Volunteers, through mutual aid groups, have done fantastic work. They have organised and run food banks very efficiently, provided mental health support and supported our NHS workers. They are the very best of our society.
The effects of lockdown are not even across the whole country, however. If you live in a good-quality suburban house with a garden and plenty of space, working at home is difficult but it is not the end of the world. If you have space for your children to study, it is okay but not great, because they ought to be in school. We understand that. But if you are a family with three or four children living in one or two-bedroom flat with  no balcony, no open space, insufficient computer access and insufficient income because of the coronavirus crisis, it is a very different story indeed. They are the children underachieving in school and the people going through a mental health crisis and, sadly, that has led to an increase in domestic violence. I have raised these matters before during debates and questions on this.
Overall, the Government’s record through the pandemic has been lamentable. They did not take seriously what the World Health Organisation was telling them in January last year, 15 months ago, and their levels of incompetence over the provision of PPE and their handing out of massive contracts to the private sector for the failed track and trace do not inspire confidence. We say well done to the scientists who have developed the vaccines and to those administering the vaccine programme as we speak, but why are the patents for these vaccines going to continue to be held by the private sector when the public have invested so much in them? Why are the poorest people in the poorest parts of the world not getting any access to these vaccines at all?
We should review this situation. It has brought out the best and worst of our society. Healthcare workers and others are now rewarded with a pay cut as a result of this. We need instead an approach that increases statutory sick pay and universal credit, guarantees decent housing and recognises the fact that those refugees and migrants without access to public funds also need to be protected. Our liberties are at stake under this Act. Why on earth could the Government not at least review section 21 on the powers of the police to prevent protest and demonstration? We need to live in a free society in which people can express their wishes. That surely is the very least we can expect from this Parliament and this Government. That is why I will not be supporting this legislation when we are invited to vote on it later today.

William Wragg: What an extraordinary thing! This evening, I imagine I will find myself in the Lobby with the right hon. Gentleman who spoke before me, although he will do it by proxy, I presume, and, perhaps more concerningly from my perspective, with the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), who is to follow me.
It is an eccentric thing, I suppose, to talk in this House about beliefs and fundamental rights, but if we cannot talk about such esoteric things in the House of Commons, what on earth can we talk about, except that we have been reduced to the Facebook Commons, with clips and YouTube, in recent times?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) was spot on in her characterisation of the Napoleonic code under which we now live. Further, she was correct to suggest that UK law tends to say what it is unlawful to do. Indeed, rights and freedoms are not in the ownership of the state, but are innate.
The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) brought to our attention the matter of protest in Manchester, which was an extraordinary situation to have arisen because of poorly drafted law that this  House, not in its wisdom, decided to pass. Indeed, I liked his aside about data, not dates. Hope springs eternal.
Yesterday at the Liaison Committee, a stir was created—it could have been deliberate—when the Prime Minister floated the idea of covid vaccine certification to visit the pub. Of course we should encourage the take-up of the covid vaccine. What a miraculous achievement and what great foresight the Government had on that particular aspect. Indeed, in the recess next week, I shall be volunteering as a car park marshal—such is the level of my competence on these matters—at one of my local covid vaccine centres.
I cannot help but think we have a back of fag packet-esque approach to this whole question of covid vaccine certification. If I may be so bold, I suggest that as the Conservative party, we might actually think about what we believe in as a party, and not let ourselves be carried away by a utilitarian urge that seems to have swept across the Treasury Bench, leaving very few standing.
I will leave the matter there, but on the matter of the Procedure Committee, on which it is an honour for me to serve as a member under the very able chairpersonship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands, we did indeed produce a report that was subject to, I think, 14 separate votes. I had the temerity to table amendments to that particular report. All I would say in ending is that in paragraph 26, we said:
“We recommend that the House reverts to all aspects of its pre-pandemic practice and procedure.”
Let us hope the same can be said for our freedoms as citizens, too.

Edward Davey: Renewing the Coronavirus Act 2020 is about extra powers for Ministers—powers that have serious implications for people’s freedoms but are not crucial to help the fight against covid. The Liberal Democrats will of course vote against this motion tonight.
We have supported any necessary powers to keep people safe throughout this crisis. Indeed, a year ago we supported the original Coronavirus Bill, albeit with a very heavy heart. While we have sometimes had to accept that such public health actions were needed to preserve people’s liberty to survive this pandemic, we have always sounded a liberal warning.
A year ago in the debate, I said about the Bill that
“the powers must be used only when absolutely necessary during this emergency, and not for a moment longer.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2020; Vol. 674, c. 79.]
The experience of the past year shows that many of the powers that the Government still want to keep have proved totally unnecessary, including the extraordinary powers for police and immigration officers to detain innocent people potentially indefinitely. The Government themselves say that such powers have not been used once in the whole pandemic, yet they are still asking MPs to renew them for another six months. These unnecessary powers are causing enormous confusion for police and prosecutors. The Crown Prosecution Service’s review reveals that, as of the end of February, 252 people had been incorrectly charged under this Act, with not a single person correctly charged.
I do welcome the fact that Ministers at last accept that a few of the provisions should expire, especially the reduction in people’s rights to care. I warned on Second Reading last year that these were
“some of the most alarming provisions in the Bill.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2020; Vol. 674, c. 79.]
We called on the Government to remove them last September, when we showed that they were illegal under international law, so I am glad they have gone.
However, the Government still seem determined to keep most of these unnecessary draconian powers. Indeed, what is disturbing is that Ministers are now resorting to desperate false arguments to persuade MPs to vote for this motion. Ministers said that voting it down would end furlough; it will not. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said it was needed for people to carry on volunteering in the NHS; that is not true. This is fake news, and this House should not fall for it.
There are some parts of the Act that are needed, but that is not justification for renewing all these sweeping and intrusive powers for another six months, not least because there is an alternative. Liberty has published a protect everyone Bill to replace the Coronavirus Act. It contains the laws necessary to protect both public health and human rights. That is the law we should be debating, as our amendment calls for.
Conservative Ministers are asking for a blank cheque for another six months, so I really hope that Conservative Back Benchers, and indeed Labour and SNP colleagues and others across the House, will do what the Liberal Democrats are going to do, and that is not support this Bill. We will vote against this motion, and I hope Conservative Ministers go away and think again, and put liberty first.

Jeremy Wright: This debate is not about the Government’s response to covid-19 so far, but about what we do next. The most significant shift in the situation we face today is of course the success of the vaccination programme, for which all involved deserve credit, but my concern is that the logic of that success has not found its way into the approach to lifting the covid-related restrictions on our daily lives.
Before significant progress was made on vaccination, the primary driver in our response to the virus was to prevent or to minimise transmission, and that was clearly right when transmission in any part of society was likely to lead to the infection, hospitalisation or death of those most vulnerable to the virus. However, the Government have—rightly, in my view—prioritised those most clinically vulnerable in the vaccine roll-out, meaning that, by the end of April, those accounting for 99% of mortality from the virus will have received at least one dose.
We know that the vaccine is effective and we know that take-up is very high among vulnerable groups, as the Secretary of State confirmed earlier, so by the end of April we know that the level of protection given to those most likely to die or be hospitalised by this virus will be very extensive. We know, too, that those remaining unvaccinated will overwhelmingly be younger and less vulnerable to that virus, and that about a third of the population will have no symptoms of infection, meaning that if they have had the virus, they may already have antibodies, and if they have not, they will not be ill.
All of this taken together must mean that the overall risks of death and hospitalisation are much lower than they were, and that is surely the most important consideration. Pre-vaccine, those risks clearly outweighed the risks to our mental health, our general welfare and our livelihoods that come from extensive restrictions to our liberties. However, in quantifying those risks for May or June of this year in a substantially vaccinated Britain, how different are they likely to be from the risks posed by other illnesses such as flu, or even other causes of death such as road traffic accidents, in response to which we do not seek to impose even the restrictions scheduled for the later stages of the Government’s road map?
If we were considering not the continuation of restrictions today but their initiation, would we consider those restrictions justified? I am not convinced that we would. We have never run our lives or our country on the basis that no risk is acceptable. We have always balanced risks and we have to do so again here. The truth is that the risks of reopening too slowly are not negligible. Removing restrictions in June and not in May means weeks more misery for those who have found these restrictions particularly hard and for businesses, including hospitality and tourism businesses, for which this is an important part of the year.
I do not think that we should remove all restrictions in the next 21 days and I will vote accordingly, but I do think that we should combine steps 3 and 4 of the Government’s road map and remove almost all restrictions in May. An entirely precautionary approach is simply not feasible. We know that covid will be with us for some time—perhaps indefinitely—and we cannot respond to that with indefinite restrictions any more than we would, or do, in response to the risk of other diseases. Although I support much of what the Government have done and are doing in response to the pandemic, I cannot support the continuation of damaging restrictions any longer than I consider they are necessary, which I am afraid is less time than the Government propose in these regulations.

Dawn Butler: One year ago, the Government’s Coronavirus Act was passed to address an unfolding emergency in the UK. It was an unknown situation and we understandably rushed through the extraordinary provisions without line-by-line scrutiny. But that was a year ago. Look at how much we have all now learned about viruses, mutations and vaccinations—so why are we still voting through an old bit of legislation? The Act is a blanket of draconian powers that the Government have wrapped themselves in. Last October, we were told that there was not enough time to write a new Bill, but that is simply not true now, is it? We have 21 days to write a new Bill and present it to Parliament and we will not lose anything like the furlough scheme, as has been said before. In fact, most of the measures that we have used have come under other bits of legislation.
There is no need to panic about writing a new Bill, because yesterday I presented to the House the Coronavirus (No. 2) Bill. The Prime Minister has agreed to read it and to respond to me. May I say that it is oven-ready? In fact, it is not just oven-ready; it is baked and ready to eat. It is a shame that we will not be able to discuss it today because we will not have time. The sponsors of  my Bill—it is cross-party—are willing to discuss the Bill with everybody and to take amendments, because it is based on lessons learned and on the science. I sincerely thank Liberty, because without it we would not have this Bill, and it is a really good Bill. Liberty’s “Support Protecting Everyone” paper is a compelling read that outlines the society that we could build as we emerge from the pandemic.
Today Parliament is voting on a piece of legislation that has failed us on so many different levels, even though Ministers have decided that they are going to get rid of some bits of it. It is not good enough; that is Parliament’s job. Worryingly, through cronyism we are seeing the greatest transfer of wealth from ordinary working people and independent businesses into the hands of corporations and multi-millionaires—some old and some newly made. All this is happening at a time when the most vulnerable, those most in need of help and those most in need of support and praise, such as the NHS, have been left out in the cold. That is why I am proposing a new approach—one that is more in line with where we are now and where we are going.
Most powers that have been used to enforce coronavirus rules have their origins in other legislation. Less than 5% are from the Coronavirus Act, so that legislation is quite literally not fit for purpose. That is why we need the Coronavirus (No. 2) Bill. It would protect disabled people and ensure proper sick pay so that people would not have to choose between spreading the virus and staying at home. It would protect those in rented accommodation. It is an efficient Bill. It has been said that nobody is safe until everybody is safe, so let us make everybody safe.
We do not have to cling to the draconian blanket of the Act just because it is there. My plea to Parliament is: let us take back control and vote against this Bill. My plea to the country is: let us stop allowing this Government to gaslight us, and let us show the Government that we care and that we want to build back better coming out of this pandemic. Parliament has a chance today, and the country will have an opportunity to take back control on 6 May when people vote Labour at the ballot box. Some 126,000 lives of loved ones have been lost due to this pandemic. If we cannot learn the lessons from this, when will we learn the lessons?

Desmond Swayne: The habit of inhumane policy soon trickles down to the servants of the state. This morning, a constituent of mine undergoing a miscarriage was denied the company of her husband. I have sent the details to the Secretary of State.
Tyranny is a habit, and the motions on the Order Paper this evening show that we have not quite kicked it. The powers that touched our personal choices and came at such a huge cost remain. We were told that they were there purely temporarily to deal with the emergency. Well, by any measure the emergency is over and the hugely successful vaccination campaign is the guarantee against its return. Yet on the Order Paper tonight the Government seek to retain those powers to control aspects of our lives, together with the punishment regime for those who disobey.
Now, those of us who can spot the trajectory will have seen yesterday that, after months of denial, people will now indeed have to provide their vaccination bona fides when they go to the pub. Those who are teetotal and imagine that they might be spared such intrusion and inconvenience can dream on: this will undoubtedly be extended to restaurants, theatres, sporting venues, and so proceed to total social control. Did it ever occur to Ministers that they might actually incentivise vaccination—carrot, not stick? Undoubtedly it did not, because they cannot kick the habit. They are wedded to the stick.
Let there be no wringing of hands by Members of Parliament who vote for oppressive legislation and then wail with indignation when the police actually enforce it. When families are fined thousands of pounds for staying over together at Easter, we will know that it was because this House willed it so. Those people, those hon. Members, wishing for these measures to pass tonight should reflect clearly on exactly what it is they wish for.

Rosie Winterton: The Member who was No. 14 on the call list has withdrawn, so we go to Sir Bernard Jenkin.

Bernard Jenkin: I suppose I have an opportunity to reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), who has just spoken. I have a rather different take.
Many people seem to be seized of the idea that the vaccination programme has already freed us and that we are entitled to take back freedoms now. I want to challenge that. The threat of a third wave exists—in fact, there will be a third wave; it is just a question of how large it is going to be. The only thing that will constrain it is the proportion of the population who are resistant.
There is 85% take-up in half the population at the moment and the vaccines are on average 85% effective: that means that only 72% of half the population has immunity. The Secretary of State referred to Public Health England advice—based on very fresh data, I hasten to add—that bears out the most recent Imperial College modelling, which shows that even if all the restrictions are not lifted until July there is still a danger of a third wave. If the restrictions were lifted at the end of April, say, there would be a dramatic rise in the number of hospitalisations.

Mark Harper: I read with great care my hon. Friend’s article on ConservativeHome this morning. He refers to the modelling that Imperial and Warwick did. I went through that in some detail, but the problem is that the assumptions they made—I went through every single one—are all overly pessimistic compared with the actuality. That is why I asked the Secretary of State to redo that modelling, because if he did so, I think he would come to a much more optimistic conclusion than my hon. Friend has reached.

Bernard Jenkin: I am perfectly prepared to accept that it is a worst-case scenario, but we are dealing with projections that are based on a great deal of speculation, and they do not take account of the possibility of new variants. I rather share the concern expressed by some Members in the debate that we need restrictions on  people coming into this country, particularly from the continent, and that there should be more testing of people coming here. I am sure that the Government will want to implement those measures if they can. It is rather easier to call for them to implement them than to do so without causing a great deal of disruption.
I want to briefly touch on the continuation of our vaccination programme. One of the risks that we need to factor in is that the rate of vaccination will slow, and particularly the rate of first doses, because the vaccination programme now has to cope with the large quantity of second doses. The restrictions on vaccine supply mean that the number of first doses will perhaps reduce to as little as 50,000 a week in April. That does not rule out that we should adopt a generous attitude towards our European friends, however much they may be casting around for blame and trying to salvage their reputation from the failure of their own vaccination programmes. We can draw comfort from the fact that they are resorting to possible bans and blockades because they have no contractual obligations to enforce upon AstraZeneca—it is a misunderstanding of the difference between contracts that give rights over stock that exists and contracts that give rights over the flow of production, which is creating stock that does not yet exist.
The fact is that we are at the front of the queue, but I think that the United Kingdom should seek to be generous and to avoid this vaccine nationalism, even if it means giving up some of the flow of our vaccine, although it is understood that there are actually some large quantities of vaccine in the European Union that are not being used. The fact that they have trashed the reputation of the AstraZeneca vaccine is most unfortunate, and while understandable in psychological terms, it is unforgivable in public health terms.
Finally, on the issue of lifting covid restrictions in Parliament, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, who cobbled together a majority in the Procedure Committee to get what he wanted in the Committee’s report. But I suggest that, in the end, it is a matter for the whole House what the House’s procedures are. There are things to learn, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, that will make the House more equal, fairer to people who are sick and fairer to people who have caring responsibilities and perhaps take the pressure off the shortage of time we have because we do not want too many late nights. Some of our debates have got too short, and speeches have got too short, and if those who had to be away could have proxy votes, we could have longer debates, better debates and better scrutiny of legislation, as well as a House that is more attractive for women to stay in and take part in.

Rosie Winterton: I need to point out that, if Members take interventions, it would be helpful for them to stick to the four-minute time limit, because otherwise we simply will not get everybody in. Colleagues in the Chamber may not be able to get in if Members do not stick to the time limit, which would be a shame.

Richard Burgon: I will vote against the Act today. The Government’s response has been one of the worst in the world: one of the world’s  highest death rates and one of the world’s deepest economic downturns. Contracts that lined the pockets of political contacts were given greater priority than investing in public health measures that could have saved lives and livelihoods. Some on the Government Benches will vote against their Government today. I share nothing with their extremist views on how to respond to this health crisis. Regardless of any tactical splits in the Conservative party, the common thread between them has been an ideology that put profit before health. That is why we closed down too late. That is why we opened up too early—repeatedly.
For months, I have called on the Government to implement an alternative strategy, alongside the vaccine, to drive the virus down to very low levels, as other countries have successfully done, with a maximum suppression or zero covid strategy. This remains essential if we are to prevent dangerous mutations that render the vaccine less effective. However, any covid strategy will only be effective if there is proper economic support for those affected. Yet one year after lockdown began the Government still refuse to provide sick pay at levels that cover real living costs. It is simply unacceptable that many of the lowest-paid workers on furlough are still expected to live on less than the minimum wage. That cannot go on for months more. This is about not just social justice, but public health. Covid deaths have been over twice as high in the most deprived communities as in the better off. Lower-paid workers are much more likely to die from covid. I am increasingly fearful that this is becoming a disease of the poor. Urgent action is needed to ensure that it does not.
People have been brilliant throughout the whole crisis, looking after each other and respecting the lockdown rules. It is the Government who have failed. While the Government continue to fail to put in place proper sick pay to those who need to self-isolate, a decent minimum income floor and other measures that deal with the deepening social crises that people in our communities face, I cannot support extending the Government’s Coronavirus Act for six months. I will vote against that Act. The Government should bring back a better Act—one that protects civil liberties and tackles both the public health and social crises.

Steve Brine: I welcome motion 5 in the name of the Leader of the House. It is high time that the House of Commons took back some control. I expect the House of Commons Commission to follow the lead and move in lockstep with the road map for everything else here when it comes to it.
I welcomed the road map in the House when it was published last month and I will support the regulations today, because it is a route out that I called for and it would be churlish not to. I have not changed my view that it is too cumbersome in parts—it is. I do not think it shows enough belief in vaccines, which must give us immunity from covid at the same time as giving us immunity from the restrictions on our lives—otherwise what is the point? I have not changed my view that it unfairly singles out hospitality as the villain, for instance, opening all retail and personal care businesses on 12 April—which the Prime Minister says is a date that is looking good—yet ensuring Winchester’s pubs and restaurants cannot open in any truly profitable way  until 17 May at the earliest. I asked the Prime Minister on 22 February why, after all the good work they did last year to create covid-secure environments, restaurants and cafés face another three months—it is still seven weeks from today—before they can open in any meaningful way. Again, I ask those on the Front Bench today, given that we are putting the road map into law, what evidence have the Government seen that has convinced them to make that decision? It is, let us remember, data, not dates.
Turning to the Coronavirus Act, I have been through the one-year report on the provisions of the Act and I thank the team for it. I note and welcome the parts that Ministers are retiring, such as section 8 on emergency volunteering leave and section 24, which gives the state crazy provision to retain the fingerprints and DNA profiles of my constituents. There are other sections—for example, section 14 allows the NHS not to comply with the requirement to continue healthcare assessments—which could be expired, given that we are nowhere near last resort territory and the NHS is clearly not at risk of being overwhelmed. There are many others. I dislike intensely schedules 21 and 22 in particular, which is very sinister, and would gladly have supported the amendment to remove it in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) had it been allowed.
Generally, however, we are in danger of conflating the regulations, the road map out of lockdown, with the Act. They are not the same and one can happen without the other. The real action centres around the four reviews, the main three being social distancing, covid status certification and international travel, but ahead of today, I checked in with my local NHS and the two main professional bodies impacted by the emergency registration of nurses. They tell me that some provisions are still needed. I cannot deny that they said that. I checked in with the legal beagles and, given the backlog, I can see the importance of live links for criminal proceedings in our court system. So, if I am honest, I think we are rather hoist by our own petard on the renewal of the Act. Six months is way too long and it does not fit the road map, but that is what the Act says—those of us who were involved in drafting it have to take our share of responsibility for that—so it is take it or leave it territory and “leave it” would have consequences, too, even if it left behind some parts of the Act that I have said I do not like. There is no “perfect” here and I cannot, in all good sense, allow this to be a binary “good versus evil” choice of the kind so ridiculously set out, in a rare appearance, by the leader of the Liberal Democrats. It is not.
The Government should deliver on their road map, keep on retiring parts of the Act, which they can do on the two-monthly schedule, and make damn sure that we are not back here in six months’ time, because they will get a very different answer from the House of Commons.

Owen Thompson: I would like to associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), who made some important points, particularly about what we do and do not do to tackle the importing of variants from overseas and about the chance that it  could undermine some of the efforts we are making here and the success of the vaccine programme. Unlike my hon. Friend, I have not been lucky enough yet to have my blue envelope. Sadly, I still have some time to wait—in other senses, of course, that is a positive—but I am happy to do so, in the full knowledge that the vaccine is being rolled out to those who really need it. The success on that has to be very much welcomed across the board.
For much of my time, I would like to speak about the focus that we need to have on virtual proceedings. I acknowledge the comment from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) that the Procedure Committee recently published a report saying that its majority view was that it wants to return to normal as soon as possible, but it was a majority view—it was not unanimous—and a number of us on the Committee would like to see what can be done to consider any positives that we can take from virtual participation. I certainly welcome what the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) said about comments by the Prime Minister that that will be looked at, which back up comments previously made to the Committee by the Leader of the House.
There are positives that we can take forward from virtual participation in proceedings, and simple measures such as pass readers have benefited a lot of the work that goes on here, but it is important to highlight that there has been a distinct lack of opportunity for the House to debate a lot of these processes. Too often, it has been a “nod or nothing” motion—a take it or leave it. If we want any virtual participation at all, we have had to accept what is in the motion, and there has not been the opportunity to debate, to amend and to consider what else would be possible.
Finally, I appreciate that no amendments are being taken today, but perhaps the Minister will take account of my Ministerial Interests (Emergency Powers) Bill. It would not put any restriction on the Government’s ability to act quickly when issuing contracts relating to the pandemic. However, it would put in place a mechanism whereby, if there was a connection and there were some of the issues that have been highlighted in the press, there would be an opportunity after the event for Parliament to scrutinise, to question and to make sure that full transparency was available, so that it could have absolute confidence that those contracts had been awarded in an appropriate manner. The Bill would not slow anything down, and if the Government have nothing to fear, they have nothing to hide.

Liam Fox: A year after the lockdown, may I begin by thanking people in my constituency? Of course, I thank the core workers, whom we recognise so often, in the NHS and in education, but also those on the supermarket tills, public sector transport workers and those who have been delivering to our homes and who have kept our lives going. They do not always get the mention they deserve. I also thank the community groups and volunteers who have silently and often invisibly managed to keep our communities afloat. Above all else, I thank the men, women and children in all our constituencies who have forgone the basic human pleasures of family and friends and made sacrifices to keep the rest of us safe—very unlike, I have  to say, the selfish, reckless and self-indulgent individuals who were rioting close to my constituency, in Bristol, last weekend.
I would be dishonest if I did not say that I resent having to vote for a six-month extension to these rules, given that they are out of step with the lockdown path set out by the Government. However, I also accept that we have no alternative, given the legislative position in which we find ourselves, so I will support the Government today. After looking back on how we have handled this, including the legislative elements, we need to ensure that, when the same or a similar situation happens in the future, we do not allow such long periods for the Government to hold emergency powers without the House of Commons being able to regularly review them. A six-month period where the Government have such powers is out of step with our constitutional conventions in this country. It is certainly out of step with what I regard as the principles of conservatism to allow the Government that leeway, so I hope that will change.
There has been a lot of talk about the concept of passports. I will say something briefly about that. In international travel, we are all used to the concept that we cannot cross a border without having immunisation. That is a perfectly reasonable thing for any country, including the United Kingdom, to want to do. It is when it comes to domestic issues that I think there is a real problem. Were the Government to try to compel individuals to carry some proof of either immunity through vaccine or a negative test, that would be completely unacceptable in a country where civil liberties are held so highly and are so prized. However, we as Conservatives should be careful not to constrain the private sector in how it chooses its customers. If companies—whether airlines or pubs—choose to have particular customers in particular ways, that is up to them. I would not like a Conservative Government to intervene in the freedom of the private sector to choose its customers. We cannot pick and choose which freedoms to protect and which to disapply.
On the concept of a third wave, it is not a third wave; it is a continuing wave. If a population does not have immunity to a particular pathogen, it will continue to spread until community immunity increases, either through vaccination or because of recovery from infection.
We have to ensure that we do better globally. We have not done well, as a global community, on this pandemic. We have mrNA technology, which should make it much quicker for us to deal with any emerging pathogens, yet we have a global pandemic disaster on our hands. We have to recognise that, if we are going to do better in the future, we have to have global protocols. However, we cannot have global protocols without global metrics—and we cannot even decide exactly how to measure the number of people who have died from the pandemic. We have a long way to go and, when we look at how we handled it, we need to look at how we handled it as an international community. A global pandemic requires global solutions.

Bell Ribeiro-Addy: This week marks one year since the first UK lockdown. My thoughts and prayers this week are with the loved ones of the almost 130,000 people who have lost their lives since then. It is  also a year since the Government were given an unprecedented set of extraordinary powers via the Coronavirus Act. This was not done with a recorded vote. The only possible justification for giving the Government the powers outlined in the Act is to keep us safe, but this Government have presided over the worst coronavirus death toll in Europe and the worst economic recession since records began, so that clearly has not worked. Many of the measures have barely been used, as Secretary of State admitted today. Even worse, a year on, with all the experience we now have of dealing with the virus and its ramifications, Members of Parliament are not given the opportunity to scrutinise or amend measures to better serve our constituents, who continue to suffer.
It seems that, given the Act is not about safety or support, and does not even adhere to our equalities law, it is yet another means of consolidating power in an ever-failing Executive. The Secretary of State actually proved that when he announced today that the Government were suspending a number of measures in the Act. While I believe the Secretary of State thought that announcement would appease those with concerns, like me, all I heard is that, while democratically elected Members of this House can only vote yes or no, the Government can do whatever they like—no checks, no balances, no scrutiny. This Government’s majority does not give them the right to run roughshod over our democracy and prevent Members from representing their constituents. I would argue that perhaps if alternative measures were permitted before the House, the Conservative party might find the numbers in its Lobby dwindling as MPs decided to vote in the best interests of their constituents. This Act is not the best we can do by this country.
Last March, when the Act was introduced, human rights organisations warned that the powers that it contained were loosely drafted, giving too much discretion to the Home Secretary and leaving too much room for confusion. The vigil in my constituency to remember Sarah Everard shows exactly what this meant: the decision to stop women exercising their civil liberties and expressing their anger and grief actually left everyone less safe. The police should never have been in a position to do that, but they cited this Act as their legal right to do so. It has also been used to fine nurses protesting the disgraceful 1% pay rise and GMB workers picketing the disgraceful fire and rehire practices.
It is not irresponsible or unreasonable to vote against this Act today. It is, some might say, a vote against measures that are not going to keep us more safe, and it is a demand for measures that will protect us all. The first time that this Act was passed, it was done in one day. Voting this Act down would give us 21 days. We do have time. That is why I was pleased to support Liberty’s “Protect Everyone Bill”, the alternative coronavirus Bill —the Coronavirus (No. 2) Bill—presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler). There is an alternative, and I will vote against the renewal of this Act tonight to give us the opportunity to realise that.

Steven Baker: I refer to the declarations that I have made relating to support for the Covid Recovery Group. There are people out there who are absolutely furious because of the great harms and  losses that they have suffered. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) mentioned his pint of milk protest, which has already attracted the interest of sketch writers. He reminded me that I have learned recently from the National Farmers Union that in our area, south Bucks and Middlesex, three dairy herds have been lost because the closure of hospitality has reduced the supply for their products—three dairy herds lost, with all the livelihoods that go with them and all the wellbeing effects on the farms.
I remember and wish to honour the 302 people who have died in Wycombe district—a district a little larger than my constituency. Of course, we need to remember with humility that people have died from this disease, but we also need to look to the future and remember the harms caused by the response to coronavirus: wellbeing and economic harms from lockdowns and restrictions. We need to be very careful to categorise the causes of those harms very carefully.
According to the “Guido Fawkes” website today:
“Polling by Yonder for the Recovery campaign reveals that the Government’s pandemic advertising has had a shocking impact on the mental health of the nation. Over 15% of respondents reported depression, anxiety, or fear as a direct result of Government pandemic advertising. That’s equivalent to over 8 million people.”
I know that every Minister and every Member of this House wishes to improve the mental health of the nation, but I am afraid the indications are that one of the best ways we could improve the nation’s mental health right now would be to cease this terrifying advertising and say to the public, “There is great news. The vaccines are working.” We should stop terrifying people, treat them like adults and ask them to comply, but to comply while we get the vaccine rolled out and save lives.
I turn to the steps regulations. The reality is that these proposals will pass tonight. I think the House has already heard an excellent case for voting against. I have paid great attention to my great friend Dr Raghib Ali, an epidemiologist and acute medicine consultant in my constituency, who has written on “ConservativeHome” saying why we should unite around these steps regulations. There are proposals in there that I would not be willing to vote for, but I very much hope that, today, the House will choose not to divide over these regulations. They are a path to freedom and, my goodness, we do need one. But I say to the Government, please look at the work of Professor Paul Dolan at the London School of Economics. He and I have spoken about something called situational blindness. However well-intentioned and skilful the professionals are who have formed these policies, I fear that they are rather like all of us—in secure employment, in decent housing, perhaps with gardens and a view. Many, many other people out there affected by these rules are not, have not been and will not be.
There is a great deal more to be said. Schedule 21 of the Coronavirus Act has the 100% record of failure that has been well articulated. I regret that my amendment could not be selected. I would hope that everyone who has spoken against schedule 21 would have voted for it, and I think it would have gone through. I will, unfortunately, have to vote against the Government tonight in order to protest schedule 21, and also schedule 22, which has never been used and is therefore redundant. Those schedules should certainly be removed.
The Act is extreme, unnecessary and disproportionate—I do not have time to go through why—and for that reason I shall vote against it. It is absolutely imperative, as we go forward, that we get the House of Commons back in line with the steps programme, but the one thing we must not do is exempt ourselves from the inconvenience suffered by the public.

John Spellar: If there is a vote tonight, I shall vote no because of concerns that the Government are still focusing on risk avoidance rather than risk management when the public want to get back to normality and thought they were going to be getting that with the vaccine roll-out. In fact, as I see it, this is a move away from earlier on in the pandemic when there seemed to be a balance of debate inside Government between the economic tendency—the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Business Department—and the Health Department. That is a healthy tension because there are real decisions that have to be made. But it now seems almost as though the Chancellor of the Exchequer has become invisible and vanished from that debate, and there is only one group inside Government who are now driving it.
I would have preferred these measures to have monthly renewals by Parliament so that they could be considered much more regularly, because the cost to the economy and to the physical and mental health of our nation has been enormous and is frankly unsustainable. Many parts of the economy, especially in the leisure, hospitality and entertainment industries, are teetering on the brink. Every week more of them go under. Hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens are being put on the dole and many more are fearful that they face the same fate. This is particularly impacting on young people who are not able to get into the labour market. Many small family businesses, with their hopes, fears and aspirations, are being ruined. Millions of self-employed, as we have heard regularly in this House, have been left high and dry.
As we have also heard today, long supply chains of industries are being hit. Many of these industries are part of our attraction to the wider world and they all need Britain to get back to work—the pubs and clubs, restaurants and cafés, theatres and cinemas, TV and film production companies, sporting venues, sports clubs, betting shops, bingo halls and casinos. They are part of what makes our society, what makes Britain an attractive place to live and work, and why people come here, and many of them are being hit incredibly badly.
The public want to be back to normal. As the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) rightly said, they got the vaccines thinking that that would be a pathway back to normality. That is why, unlike some, I believe that vaccine passports or certificates may be inevitable, not only for foreign travel but here as well. I heard Jonathan Neame on the radio this morning. He is a man who knows the beer business extremely well, but he was not necessarily facing up to the real alternative, which is that if the Government drag their feet on reopening, vaccine passports that enable businesses to open earlier, stay open and keep the whole supply chain going may be something that we have to seriously consider.
There has been quite a bit of discussion about variants, as mentioned by both the Health Secretary and the shadow Health Secretary. I think it is now generally accepted that  coronavirus will be a bit like flu with regular recurrences, probably towards autumn and winter. I worry that we are going down the path of the EU precautionary principle rather than managing that risk and accepting that unless we are going to keep shutting down society, we will have to work out how to deal with it. As I have said during the course of this pandemic, we need a policy that enables us to co-exist with the virus rather than vainly hoping we can eliminate it. That is the real challenge, and the question is: can the Government rise to it?

Richard Graham: I think in our constituencies there is a real fear that the road map and the extension of the Coronavirus Act are one and the same, that extending the latter means effectively delaying the former, and that if we support the motion this evening, lockdown restrictions will be extended and freedoms not returned. I therefore echo the concerns of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) and my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), about today’s motions. They are not all ideal, because many of us would prefer the return of full freedoms to coincide with the end of the Coronavirus Act, and the Health Secretary made the case as to why that could not be so, while ending some 12 schedules of the restrictions within the Act. He made the case for the need for the Act continue.
If we could amend the Act, I would agree with several colleagues that, for example, schedule 14, for health assessments, and schedule 1, which gives powers to the police to detain those potentially infectious persons for up to 24 hours, would be prime candidates. In fact, as my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), pointed out, schedule 22 has never been used at all, and that would be another candidate for amendment. But we have allowed legislation that is not amendable, and therefore the choice this evening is really whether to support the motions, because there are parts of the Act that have been widely useful, such as temporary courts, the different treatment of leases, and statutory sick pay, and those do, I believe, require support from us all.

John Spellar: The reality is that if the Government were defeated tonight, they would recall Parliament and put through the legislation to pass the necessary measures, and therefore they are erecting a false alternative, are they not?

Richard Graham: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I want to focus this evening on the key messages that I think it is important for us to hear from the Government this evening; when the Minister sums up, perhaps he can allude to them. The first is that we are still trading on a slogan of “Protect the NHS”. Although none of us underestimates the importance of a fully functioning NHS or the incredible efforts made by all our local NHS trusts, the time has come to recognise that actually in many of our hospitals there are now fewer people with coronavirus than would normally be there with flu; that the huge efforts made by our NHS have broadly succeeded in taking out of hospital —certainly in my hospital, the Gloucestershire Royal Hospital—those patients who had been in intensive  treatment; and that the time has come to look at the huge backlog of other physical operations that are needed, at the people who have been too shy to come forward because they were frightened of catching the virus just by going into hospital, and at the incredible backlog of mental health issues that is only just beginning to surface.
Last weekend, the father of a young woman currently working for me dived into the River Severn fully clad in order to save a young woman from drowning. She did not want to be saved; she wanted to commit suicide. We are, in each of our constituencies, seeing more cases of that type, and each one has a whole ricochet of tragedy attached to it, as the Minister knows well.
Therefore, whatever the new message is—I shall not try to draft it for the Government this evening—I think the message has to be that it is now time for us all, but inevitably particularly the NHS, to look after those who have not had coronavirus; to swivel our attention, not completely away from the pandemic, which has not gone away and will never completely go away; and to recognise how much more needs to be done to protect others in society and give them the chances and the attention to flourish—which, of course, is where the road map comes in. I still believe that it is an almost impossible task for our police forces to fully implement the requirements of the restrictions that we have laid on them, and I hope that the Government will be able to do more to allow things to open a little bit earlier and give back those freedoms that everybody values so dearly.

Munira Wilson: We could scarcely have imagined that, a whole year after a strange virus that we knew very little about arrived on our shores and Ministers were able to railroad a 348-page Bill through Parliament in three days, taking away individuals’ rights and freedoms on an unprecedented scale, we would be here being asked to renew those powers yet further still. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) made very clear, the Liberal Democrats will not and cannot support the renewal of the Coronavirus Act today. We will absolutely not give a blank cheque to Ministers to continue those draconian powers.
I turn my attention to the road map regulations. In the main, I welcome the fact that the Government have finally learned the hard way, after three lockdowns, 126,000 deaths, of which 84,000 were in the past six months alone, and untold damage to people’s lives and livelihoods, that “steady as she goes”, as opposed to what happened last summer, is the key to unlocking safely. However, as the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) has already pointed out, vaccination alone will not keep the virus under control as we open up, especially given the third wave that we are seeing surging in so many European countries. That is a huge threat to us, so tough public health measures at our borders are critical, yet the travel ban in the regulations is simply not fit for purpose.
I am appalled that Ministers wish to criminalise people for visiting loved ones overseas, yet the Prime Minister’s father and friends get a free pass to go and take care of their second homes abroad—because of course second home owners cannot possibly bring the virus back into this country, can they? Despite clear scientific advice and international best practice in support of a blanket quarantine for arrivals from all countries,  our system was implemented far too late and is far too leaky to properly protect against new variants being imported that could potentially be vaccine resistant. Criminalising international travel with a £5,000 fine and an exemption for second home owners exemplifies the Government’s approach to so many aspects of the pandemic: half-baked, authoritarian, and one rule for them and one rule for us.
Alongside vaccination and tougher restrictions at our borders as we embark on this road map out of lockdown, with virus rates inevitably jumping again, breaking chains of transmission will be critical, as the Health Secretary himself said earlier, yet the regulations do nothing to improve the rate of self-isolation. With as many as 20,000 people a day not self-isolating, when will Ministers realise that paying people to stay at home, and providing practical support for those with dependants and accommodation for those in overcrowded homes, is key to boosting self-isolation?
Robust quarantine measures at our borders and far better self-isolation must go hand in hand with vaccination in order gradually and safely to open up our economy and society. Neither the far-reaching, draconian powers in the Coronavirus Act, nor vaccine passports for domestic use, which would create a two-tier society and an extra burden for struggling businesses, will achieve that aim. Our constituents have sacrificed far too much, and our scientists, NHS staff and volunteers have achieved wonders through the vaccine programme, so I implore Ministers: let us not squander these gains.

Mark Harper: Let me deal with the two fundamental choices that we face today. The first is on the Government’s regulations implementing the road map that the Prime Minister set out. I am not going to vote against those. I am not going to support them, but I am not going to vote against them; it would be churlish. They are a road map to freedom, and my only quarrel is with the pace, not with the direction of travel.
I go back to what the Secretary of State said. He was very clear that the Government will not be looking at modelling; they are looking at real data. If we look at hospitalisation data, the dramatic reduction in the number of deaths and the fantastic pace of the vaccination roll-out—we have seen data today showing how fantastic the take-up of vaccination has been—it is clear that we are going to be able to save lives and protect the NHS not by staying at home but by the vaccination doing the heavy lifting.
I want to pick up a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) made about the quantity of the population that has been protected. It is absolutely true that we will not have vaccinated everyone by the end of April, but importantly, we will of course have vaccinated groups 1 to 9, which account for 99% of the deaths to date and over 80% of the hospitalisations. While we will not have stopped everyone getting covid, we will have dealt with the problem of significant numbers of people becoming seriously ill, going into hospital and potentially overwhelming the NHS, and large numbers of people dying. That is why I maintain—and, increasingly, the data will bear this  out—that we could safely reopen society more quickly than the 21 June deadline. The reason why that is important is that there is another side to this situation: in that time, jobs will be lost, businesses will fail and some people will find the personal burden incredibly difficult to bear. We do not need to go through that for another two months if we are able to reopen safely earlier.
On the Coronavirus Act and the renewal of the temporary measures, I am very pleased that the Secretary of State confirmed at the Dispatch Box that what we have been hearing about the furlough scheme being brought to an end if we voted against the temporary provisions is nonsense. I said that at the weekend and I am glad that the Secretary State has now confirmed it at the Dispatch Box. I accept that there is a choice, but the problem is that some measures the Government want to take forward are very sensible, and I support them, while many others are egregious and absolutely not supported. Given that we have an up or down vote and no ability to amend, we have to balance these things. I will vote against the renewal of the temporary provisions, because the measures that the Government want to take forward are sufficiently bad and unwarranted that they do not deserve to continue. If the Government were to lose that vote—they are not going to lose it—they could, given their majority, easily implement the more sensible measures that are necessary in an alternative piece of legislation that would no doubt get through this House with cross-party and, I think, almost universal support.
Finally, I wish to reflect on what the Secretary of State said. I raised with him the point that was in the one-year review of the Act, which suggests that the schedule 21 powers—the ones that give the police the power to detain people—are necessary for the long term, and he did not rule out extending those measures for another six months. By the Government’s own admission in their explanatory notes, these measures are extraordinary and would not be acceptable in normal circumstances. Given that the Prime Minister wants us to have removed restrictions by June, it is not acceptable to extend those measures to October and I certainly do not think it necessary to extend them to March. That is why, regretfully, I will be voting against the renewal of the temporary provisions.

Rachel Hopkins: I am pleased that some provisions are being removed from the Coronavirus Act. It is important to note that, although no amendments were selected for debate, the Opposition rightly pointed out that the Government’s handling of the pandemic has resulted in one of the highest death tolls in the world and the worst economic crisis of any major economy, and they have allowed the pandemic to exacerbate the inequalities in our society and to impact black, Asian and minority ethnic communities and disabled people disproportionately.
The public health restrictions have been essential to protect our most vulnerable, but the Government have damaged public trust by failing to publish and communicate effectively the data behind key decisions. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, concluded in our recent report that the Government’s communication
“has not always been transparent enough.”
It said that the lack of transparency in relation to the local lockdown and tiering decisions led to “confusion and mistrust”.
I have heard at first hand from businesses in Luton South, especially from the hospitality sector, the frustration that they felt at not being able to access the information and data that the Government used to inform the decisions that stopped or interrupted their operations. The failure to communicate the 10 pm curfew and the restrictions on wet-led pubs caused particular distress and anger. Businesses could not understand why the Government did not work with them. Publicans told me that they already ran licensed, controlled premises and had already introduced additional coronavirus health and safety measures to keep staff and customers safe.
Businesses need to be able to plan effectively. While the Government are giving confirmation that certain restrictions will be relaxed no earlier than a specific date, that is not sufficient assurance for businesses without having sight of underlying information, and any trends and thresholds to be met. Hospitality businesses need this information to help plan for full reopening, which can take around two or three weeks, if not more, if they need to order supplies and fresh stock and to ensure that they have sufficient staff.
Building trust with the hospitality sector is vital and the Government must improve on the approach taken over the past year. As the PACAC report put it:
“Transparency builds trust, and trust aids compliance with rules.”
Alongside the new road map regulations, I press the Secretary of State to learn from past mistakes and urgently to publish detailed information and data that underpin each step in the relaxation of restrictions.

Pauline Latham: Let me start by congratulating the Government on the remarkable success of the vaccination programme. It has been phenomenal and it has made many, many people feel incredibly safe, me included—I have only four weeks until my second jab, and. I cannot wait to get it, as I will feel even better. It has given reassurance to the elderly, the disabled and those people who have felt trapped in their homes for so many months—some did not even take advantage of going out much last summer. The Government have done a fantastic job with the vaccination programme.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), I want to congratulate those people who have worked day in, day out, without much thanks, to keep the country moving. I refer to the people in the public health system and, in particular, the people in the supermarkets, who have had all sorts of people coming in and standing pretty close to them, without knowing whether covid was being passed on or not.
There have been some remarkable successes in this pandemic, but there have been some errors. My view is that we have been moving the goalposts—they started at Wembley and they are now nearly at Derby County! I am extremely worried that if we are not careful, they will be up in Scotland. We thought the vaccine was going to be the thing that would save us, and it is going to save us. We are not where we were a year ago. We are much safer than we were then. People feel safer, but we  seem to be thinking that still we cannot open hospitality businesses and weddings cannot go ahead in any sort of normal circumstance. That has such a huge impact on the rest of society—it is about the supply chains and all those single-people businesses that have had no help and no earnings for a year. We need to get those people back to work so that they can earn and get back on their feet.
We have to remember that this is not just about the pandemic; it is about the all-round health of the nation. We heard tragically from my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) about suicides. There was one down the lane from us, which I did not even know about. It is tragic that there are so many suicides because people cannot face being trapped in their homes any more and they are frightened to go out. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) about stopping all these terrifying views through adverts and things in the paper. We need to say that we are doing well and will continue to do well—Europe permitting —to get the vaccines in. But we must move forward; we must let people out. Those hospitality businesses and wedding venues have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds protecting their businesses, but they are not allowed to open. The wedding industry—I wonder whether it is because the businesses are mainly run by women—has been left with contradictory messages, and I feel the Government could be much clearer about how weddings can operate and how quickly. It is Easter and love should be in the air, but it is not.

Tim Farron: As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) said a moment ago, Liberal Democrats will not support the proposals on the table today. We consider the request for extended powers for the period of time to be an overreach—these are powers the Government do not need, and certainly do not need for a period of six months, taking us right into the autumn.
My great concern is that the Government’s default, knee-jerk attempt to seek these draconian powers for a lengthier period is beginning to fit into a pattern. We saw the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill in this place just a week or so ago, under which the Government are seeking powers to incarcerate people for up to 10 years if they protest against the Government. We are also seeing reports of the Government wanting to force carers to be vaccinated, when they have done so by choice already. That shows a complete lack of respect and tenderness towards people who have put their lives on the line for this past 12 months and longer to support others in their deepest moment of need. Of course we now have pub landlords being asked to be, in effect, border guards in their own pubs and to check a vaccine passport.
All this seems to indicate that we have a Conservative party in government that loves talking about liberty until it has to do something about it in practice, and when it comes to dealing with these issues in practice, its instincts are authoritarian. As always, if you care about liberty, you need your Liberals—and so the Liberals are guaranteed to be voting against this draconian set of powers on the table today. It is also worth bearing in mind that I do not think the police are crying out for  additional extensions to their powers. What they want is two things: resources and clarity in the guidelines and laws that they do seek to enforce.
Throughout this pandemic the strictness of the laws has not been the issue; it has been the clarity of the guidance. The Government have very often been contradicting themselves, mixing messages and sending out the wrong messages, as well as not keeping the guidance themselves as individuals and therefore setting a terrifyingly awful lead.
I want to make just one suggestion. On the road map out of this difficult time that clearly we are all experiencing as a national community, outdoor education has no place whatever. We know when nightclubs are going to open, but outdoor education facilities in my constituency in the lakes and dales, and across the rest of the country, have no date for reopening. The Government are killing off a vital industry that is there to support our young people. Its skills are especially needed at a time like this, when we want to reconnect young people with a love of learning.
The lack of a date and of bespoke funding is killing off outdoor education. My friend Kirsty Williams, the Minister for Education in Wales, announced just the other day a particular package for outdoor education centres in Wales. There is a package in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Why is there not a bespoke package for outdoor education centres in England today? Today is surely the day for them to do just that.
It is also worth bearing in mind that as people become able to move in significant numbers, as of next Monday, to beautiful places such as the Lake District, we need—and have needed for some months now—investment in popularising the countryside code. That is so that people know how to behave in beautiful places, how to treat the local residents with respect and how to look after the environment that they have come to enjoy. I am pleased that the Government are, as of the Easter weekend, putting resources into the countryside code. They should have done it nine months ago when we asked them to.
My final point is about hospitality and tourism businesses beginning to reopen. They will not all be able to open at capacity when they are allowed to. That is why financial support for them must continue until the autumn.

Chris Green: I open up by wishing everyone well on what has been a rather unhappy first anniversary of covid lockdowns and the passing of the Coronavirus Act. I do not think it has been a very happy time for anyone around the country.
The incredible success of the vaccination programme—whether it is the technicians, engineers and scientists or the roll-out itself—has been much more of a positive and its effectiveness has been startling. I do not think that a year ago anyone would have expected to be at this stage. The United Kingdom is leading Europe and the world in vaccine delivery.
The Secretary of State ought to be proud of that success. He has spoken of that sense of breaking the link between transmission, hospitalisation and death. That link is fracturing in a very significant way. At the moment,  we are pretty much able to say that that link has broken. At the end of this month—certainly next month—that link between transmission, death and hospitalisation will have gone.
I welcome the fact that we are now seeking to retire certain temporary provisions. Some were never needed and some were needed only for a temporary period and are no longer needed. But I am concerned that the Government are seeking to retain schedule 21, the provision for controlling people, given that there has been a 100% failure rate for prosecutions. I am also concerned that schedule 22, for controlling gatherings, is also being retained. That has not even been used over the past year, and we have been through the worst parts of the lockdown. It has not been as bad as some of the projections have suggested, but it has been a pretty bad time for a great many people, so why are we seeking to retain schedule 22, which was never needed during the worst of times?
I am also concerned by the increasing political narrative conveyed through the media of compulsion in vaccination, including with children being vaccinated—children who suffer so little, if at all, from the virus itself. We are going on now about vaccine passports, and the covid status certificate is a very concerning issue. I think that is being increasingly raised, and it seems to be inevitable. I just wonder about the European football championships, which will be held later this year, and whether the Prime Minister’s offer to hold them in the United Kingdom will be used to showcase how effective such certificates can be. Is that the reason that schedule 22 has been retained—for the control of people at those sorts of events? Will it be restricted just to those events, or could it be widened out further to pubs and restaurants, public transport, places of work or places of education?
I am not sure these concerns have been decisively ruled out, and I do think that the debate should be had. It would be welcome if my hon. Friend the Minister explained the retention of schedule 22; we have been going through this for a year now, and we must know exactly why it is being retained.

Alistair Carmichael: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green), who posited many of the absolutely central questions in this debate.
I readily confess that I find this a slightly frustrating experience, and it does come to the heart of the House’s role in scrutinising legislation. Many of the issues that are central to this legislation are about the definition of the relationship between the citizen and state. To try to deal with these matters in a four-minute time limit is a level of ambition to which not even I—notwithstanding the fact that I am a Liberal Democrat—am able to aspire.
It is worth recalling that, when we enacted this legislation last year, we were trying to imagine what the future would look like. We did not know what would be the course of the pandemic or how this place would work, so we were right to be cautious and we were right to trust the Government with our freedoms, but a year on we know an awful lot more than we did then.
As the hon. Member for Bolton West has said, it is surely apparent that many of the powers we gave to the Government in the Bill last year were not needed or  have not been used, and some of them have not even been enacted. As he said, 252 people have been charged with criminal offences under this Act, with not one single prosecution as a consequence. That and that alone should surely be ringing alarm bells on the Treasury Bench about the advisability of continuing with this.
Of course, it will always be the case that when we give a Government a power, they will want to hold on to it. We can go back to 1939, when this House said it was okay to have an identity card scheme. Did the Government stop the identity card scheme in 1945? No, they did not. They held on to it, and it took a private citizen to raise a court case in 1952 before we saw the back of the identity card scheme.
Mention of identity cards brings me to vaccine passports and the idea, today, of some sort of certification of people’s vaccine status that will allow them to get a pint in a pub when pubs reopen—or a measure of whisky if that is their preference. I have to say that this idea of vaccine passports is a dangerous one. It is the very thin end of a thick and illiberal wedge that we approach with caution. It raises all sorts of questions. If it is okay to force people to carry a piece of paper or a card to confirm their health status in relation to this particular virus, once we have conceded that principle, where does it take us? Is it then going to be okay for people to carry a piece of paper, under some future Government, that says they are HIV-negative, or whatever it is?

Steven Baker: I am no stranger to the right hon. Member. I am confident that it will be even worse than he imagines. It is bound to be an app on our phones with face ID that leaves behind an enormous swathe of data everywhere we go.

Alistair Carmichael: Indeed. I do not think the hon. Gentleman was in the House in 2006, when Labour tried to introduce identity cards, but I remember the objections, which were forcefully put by the then Opposition—the Conservative party—regarding the need for a register, or a database of its use. That is exactly where a vaccine passport scheme would take us back to.
I do not know whether many on the Treasury Bench have ever worked in a bar for a living. I did it for five years, before I went to university to do my law degree. If those on the Treasury Bench think that the best way to bring us in this country to a place where we become the sort of “papers please” society that we have always resisted in the past, is by doing that through pubs, I warn them that they are sadly—or perhaps happily—mistaken. Such a situation would put those who work in our pubs in the most unpleasant and difficult situation, and inevitably lead to complacency. It all would mean that instead of continuing to focus on masking, social distancing and the rest of it—those measures will be necessary to avoid a spike in infections, if and when we reopen licenced establishments and elsewhere—we will inevitably end up with a spike in infections.
For all sorts of reasons, both practical and due to matters of high principle, the Government are currently going in the wrong direction. If the House gives them carte blanche and offers them a black cheque to go in that direction, by renewing the provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020, we will not be doing the job that our voters sent us here to do.

Graham Brady: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and delighted to follow the wise words of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). I am the 31st Member to speak in this debate. I have been here throughout, and I think I am right in saying that only two Members have given their unqualified support to what the Government propose. The Government would be wise to reflect on that, considering the gap that is opening up between our rulers—the Executive and the Government—and those of us who represent the liberties of the British people. I am particularly pleased to be the fourth Greater Manchester Member to speak against what is being proposed, because we come from a city with a fine and long history of standing up for liberty, and I am glad that is continuing.
The danger in what is being proposed is that we risk normalising an extreme policy response. It was put in place during the emergency a year ago with very little thought or debate, and draconian powers were given to the Government, who initially expected a three-week lockdown, which then became a three-month lockdown. My constituents, like those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green), were released for three weeks, and then they were again put under heavy new restrictions.
I have asked before in this Chamber a question about whose rights we are dealing with. Do the Government have the right to tell people whether they can see their children or grandchildren, or whether they can start a relationship with someone? My answer is an emphatic “no”. Even those who are less certain should reflect on whether extreme control over people’s right to family life, intimate relationships, and freedom of association should be introduced just briefly by the Government in an emergency, or for more than a year.
On 6 January—the last time we had an opportunity to assert some control on the Government exercising these powers—the Prime Minister told me, when I intervened on him, that it would be very surprising if the House did not get a vote to get rid of any of these restrictions before the end of March. Well, okay, it is 25 March, so perhaps we should prepare to be surprised. I stand with Members in all parts of the House who have said we should expect that, if the Government are given these extreme powers and allowed them for longer, they will retain them and are likely to seek to extend them. That is why the House should say no to extending the Coronavirus Act—it would have been in force for a year and a half at least.
The danger is that Government start to believe that these fundamental civil liberties belong to Ministers to grant to us or withhold. They do not—they belong, as of right, to British citizens. It is this habit of control that leads to coercive laws that have no sense. Government have, for example, a legitimate interest in people who entered the United Kingdom from high-risk countries, but there is no public health argument for fining people £5,000 for leaving the country, and the Government should think again about that. This habit of coercion and control has gone too far, and it has gone on for too long. It is time for this House to trust the British people and return their rights to them.

Christopher Chope: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady). I thank him for his leadership in the campaign that so many of us support, trying to ensure that some common sense and proportionality are brought to this debate and that we have our freedoms back, because we should not have them taken away from us unless there is the most compelling justification.
As my hon. Friend said, this is also an issue of trust. The Government are using the slogan “data not dates”, but the data is either being withheld or ignored. I have been regularly looking at the so-called coronavirus dashboard. Suddenly, when the data got rather good from my perspective but bad from the Government’s perspective, it disappeared. The latest data on the dashboard for hospital admissions in Dorset goes back to 11 March, so I had to make my own inquiries, and I found out that within the last week, there have only been three hospital admissions in all the hospitals throughout Dorset. We have 1,200 beds in our hospitals, and we have a population of over three quarters of a million people. That data does not tell me that it is reasonable that we should continue to have a lockdown and that people should be deprived of their social and economic liberty. One of my constituents who is very good on these things wrote to me saying that 5,000 cases from 1.9 million tests shows that 99.993% of the population were unaffected. That is what we are talking about in terms of proportionality.
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps) (England) Regulations 2021 extend to 94 pages. How do the Government believe that we can support the regulations when there is not even an impact assessment for them? If there was an impact assessment, it would point out that every day those regulations remain in place is costing the economy about £1 billion—£1 billion a day. We can get a lot of for £1 billion, and if a cost of £1 billion a day is being incurred, there certainly needs to be a lot more justification than the Government have so far adduced during this debate.
I expect that people will increasingly take the law into their own hands as they see that there is no risk in going out and meeting in the open, as was confirmed in evidence to the Science and Technology Committee, and that there are very few risks associated with social mixing with people who are already vaccinated. The Government have got it completely wrong on risk assessment. My advice to the Minister would be to go and get some risk assessment therapy during the Easter break and then come back with some new ideas in April. He should reflect on the adage that the welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants. That, in essence, is what this debate is about, and that is why I shall be voting against these measures.

Nigel Evans: After Greg Clark’s four-minute contribution, there are seven Members left to speak. To get everybody in, we will reduce the time limit to three minutes, and the winding-up speeches will start no later than 4.44 pm.

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) mentioned the evidence to the Science and Technology  Committee that there is no known instance of outdoor infection from covid. That comes from a session that we held to scrutinise the science behind the road map measures, and I thought in my few minutes today I might just draw the House’s attention to some more of the evidence we took.
First, the road map was set based on an assessment based on evidence that is more than six weeks old. It did not have the advantage that we now have of the experience of what has happened since the vaccination programme returned results. What we know, very happily, is that the assumptions made were much more pessimistic on vaccine take-up and vaccine effectiveness than have come to be realised.
My hon. Friend will know that witnesses to our Committee suggested strongly that if we are to be driven by data not dates, we should have the flexibility to advance more quickly, should that be possible. We know that there is not the opportunity today to revise those dates, so we have what we have, but I hope that the Minister will take from this debate the real determination that we should stick at least to those dates and be rigorous in looking at the data, all of which is encouraging.
I have some concerns, as did witnesses to the Committee, about what might happen in the future. A fellow member of the Committee, the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), talked about the opacity of some of the data that is there to trigger further releases. The road map is in place, but the powers of the 2020 Act will continue, and I was a little concerned to hear the Secretary of State in his opening speech, having noted the 90% fall in hospital admissions from the peak of the pandemic, then use words of great caution about continuing to need to protect the NHS. Of course we need to do that, but we need to know what that means.
In evidence to the Committee, both Chris Whitty and Dame Angela McLean begged this House—politicians and Ministers—for some indication of what we regard as a tolerable level of risk. In the case of flu, which they cited, we have deaths each year, but in seeking to avoid them we do not lock down the whole country, so we need to supply an assessment of what degree of proportionality we should take. I do not say that should boil down to a number, as we do not do that with flu; we should nevertheless come to an understanding of what are appropriate measures in the context of the disease.
Finally, it is important to reflect on the evidence that we heard that we will not be entirely able to keep out infections and new variants from overseas, short of doing such damage to our society and our economy as is unconscionable for a trading nation as well connected as we are. I hope therefore that the Minister will confirm that we are not going to pursue a policy of repelling boarders, which would be ruinous for our economic future and our reputation as an open trading nation.

Nigel Evans: Three-minute limit.

Flick Drummond: This pandemic has put a great strain on our society and our economy, but it has also shown the strong social cohesion in the country. People have worked together and co-operated with what the science has suggested will beat this virus. As a Conservative, I do not like to see restrictions on  our freedoms any more than other hon. Members, but the measures we have put in place to combat this fast-moving novel virus have saved lives. Let us compare the Spanish flu epidemic after world war one with this one. The response to the former was driven by ineffective measures to prevent transmission and incomplete responses when it was clear that it was a fast-spreading pandemic. Spanish flu killed 50 million people worldwide and at least a quarter of a million in the UK—double the number of those who have died so far from covid.
We said we needed restrictions last year to protect our NHS and to allow it to function, and they have worked and saved lives. Of course we sympathise with everyone who has lost a friend or relative, or is suffering from the effects of long covid, but it must be clear that the situation would be much worse had we not had the restrictions. Because we have contained the virus more, we can now move along the road map, and I welcome the revocation of the all-tiers regulations with the new framework. That will allow us to reduce the levels of restriction at each stage.
I quite understand the concerns of constituents who want us to move on from lockdowns and get back on track, but we do need this framework to avoid a free-for-all at a time when we still have to vaccinate such large numbers of adults. We must keep our guard up against potential new variants and the emerging new wave in the EU and elsewhere. New mutations can develop when a virus is able to spread through unprotected populations.
My support for these regulations was reinforced yesterday at a meeting of the Hampshire local resilience forum. We heard from Dr Nigel Watson, a retired GP, who, like many others, has come back to help the NHS. He would like to continue to help with the backlog of medical cases over the next few months. Extending the regulations will allow him and others to do this. The help of Dr Watson and others is an extremely important part of getting the NHS back to normality, so I am pleased that we are extending section 2 of the Act to ensure this can continue. His story is typical of that of so many people who have helped our national effort to eliminate this dreadful disease, so let me finish by thanking him and everyone else in the NHS and the public sector who have worked so hard to support society so that we can now move on again. I will be supporting the extension of these regulations.

Bob Seely: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond).
I will start with some positives. The success of the vaccination programme is a fantastic achievement; Katie Bingham is a national hero. The Secretary of State has also worked tirelessly, as have many other Ministers. I thank again everyone involved with the vaccination process on the Isle of Wight, including the NHS teams in primary care and secondary care.
However, I am not happy with the Government’s plans today and I think they are unbalanced. In the next couple of minutes, I will explain why. First—this has been echoed by others—the Government have said that they will base their response on data, not dates, but it has become clear that the data has changed quicker  than predicted and the dates have not changed. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) just said, Government action is now based on data that is old and negative—too old and too negative. I have yet to hear a credible explanation as to why. Where is the new updated data that we should be using if we have fresh, new data? I fear that, yet again, science is being used gently to lead the debate, rather than to frame it with the evidence necessary for us to make decisions.
Secondly, basing lockdown on cases, not deaths, is not good enough. I was listening to Professor Van-Tam briefing Members a couple of days ago. He is clearly a very impressive man, but his presentation was clear: lockdown was being justified on cases. But cases are not deaths or hospitalisations. I felt as though I was almost being misled, and I say that with great respect to him. He was saying that we have to continue this way because we have cases, despite the Government saying that we cannot eliminate covid from our society and we have to live with it. We have been under house arrest for nearly a year now. Justifying continued mass house arrest based on cases, not deaths or hospitalisations, frankly felt like very thin gruel from the Government.
Thanks to the miracle of vaccination—and it is a scientific miracle, as this is the first time in human history that a pandemic is being defeated with science, which is an extraordinary event in the history of humanity —the link between cases, hospitalisation and death has been broken. Yes, we need to be mindful of cases, but cases are not deaths. The continuation of these draconian measures, now based on a “not quite sure” approach, is not normal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) said, we should not be normalising this response, because our liberties belong to us, not to the Government. Continuing in this way now, when we have broken the link between death, hospitalisation and cases sets a dangerous precedent.

Tom Randall: I think the day when all the regulations under the Coronavirus Act are lifted will be my highlight in this Parliament. That is a day that cannot come soon enough, but I do accept that today is not that day.
There is a road map and an end in sight, but the events on the continent remind us that we have not reached the end point just yet. Were the measures lifted today, many that have been deemed necessary to curtail the spread of disease and some of the measures that are helpful, such as statutory sick pay, would be removed. Given how far we have come, it is necessary to lift measures gradually to ensure that this is a one-way process, rather than taking too many steps forward now, only to have to revert at a later stage. The vaccination programme is our route out of lockdown and about 30 million jabs done is a fantastic success. I worry that sudden change might undo a lot of that good work.
The road map as it stands will see most restrictions lifted by June, and this House is being asked to renew measures for six months. I understand that that will effectively mean that large parts of the Act will be dormant, but that they can be reactivated if necessary, without primary legislation. I do not support coronavirus legislation with enthusiasm, but I understand its necessity. That is why I will be supporting the Government today.
While covid and the restrictions are on the decline, there is talk of living in a covid-tinged world for some time to come. There is a broader question. If one accepts restrictions on personal liberty to prevent the spread of deadly disease, should they be necessary to prevent its reoccurrence? There has been talk of certification or so-called vaccine passports. Earlier this week, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, on which I sit, heard evidence on that from, among others, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). We heard questions in that evidence session about the effectiveness of such a scheme. Its introduction, for example, might be not just for a football stadium, but for the train there and back where a virus might be spread. If holding a vaccine passport is likely to affect access to key public services such as public transport, I think it will be necessary to show clearly the effectiveness of such a scheme and the data on which it is based.
That is, perhaps, a debate for another day, but a thorough debate on that subject will be necessary. In the meantime, I look forward to continuing to follow the road map to get us all out of the pandemic.

Ben Spencer: This past year has been incredibly difficult for all of us, and I would like to start by paying tribute to the people of Runnymede and Weybridge for their boundless resolve and community spirit, and remembering those who have lost their lives as a result of the pandemic.
Many of my constituents are hurting. The pandemic and lockdown have hit us hard. Many have lost their jobs and many are desperate to see their loved ones. The road map and the fantastic vaccine roll-out bring those most valuable of commodities, certainty and hope—something to look forward to that life will get better. I want to go faster, but I also agree that the need for irreversibility and certainty weighs heavy. I will therefore support the regulations we are voting on today, but I must reiterate that every day we have the restrictions in place they are causing great harm. The Government should move heaven and earth to lift them as soon as possible.
In the brief time I have in this debate, I want to talk about the broader provisions of the road map. As with all discussions on the coronavirus regulations, they are only half the story. We talk a lot about the new normal and the return to normal life after the pandemic. The road map charts out the plan for the lifting of legal restrictions, but not the return to normality. Covid has changed many aspects of life and I have been calling for a long-term plan for living with the virus. I am pleased that the road map starts to tackle that through the four reviews on: large events, covid certification, international travel and social distancing.
Those four reviews will do all the heavy lifting. They are critical to setting out what our post-pandemic covid world—our endemic covid world—will look like after June. When legal restrictions lift, the impact of the recommendations will still be felt. They will have a far longer lasting impact than what we vote on today. They will form the basis of what the new normal will be on a huge range of issues that impact on daily lives, from  social distancing requirements in pubs and restaurants to the wearing of face masks, self-isolation and contact tracing.
I ask the Minister, in his closing remarks, to clarify that we will get to debate in the House the outputs of those critical reviews—the Government’s endemic covid road map, as it were—and that we will be able not just to vote on any resulting legislation, but to approve any formal guidance and provisions resulting from it.

David Simmonds: My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) was clear about the desire of his constituents to move on from these restrictions. Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner is no different in that respect—people have borne with fortitude the restrictions on their lives.
However, I very much support of extending the measures before us this evening, and I will support the Government. It is clear that there have been a number of false dawns on the way away from the impact that covid has had on all our communities. There have been times when we thought we had it on the run but it became more of a problem, and more of our residents died or were seriously ill as a consequence, so we need to make sure that we have a package of measures in place that will enable the Government and the country to support all our citizens and communities. While I completely understand that we are chafing against a number of the restrictions in the legislation, there are far more important elements that are entirely about support for businesses and people who are affected.
As we look forward to that road map, with businesses of different kinds reopening and people being welcomed back to our high streets and shopping centres, and to activities such as sport and the arts, which have had to go into the deep freeze during this covid period, it is absolutely vital that we have these backstop powers so that if there is a resurgence of covid, perhaps from a mutation, the Government are able to act swiftly and respond to dampen that down and keep our people safe. For all those reasons, I support what is before us and will support the Government this evening.

Caroline Nokes: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who talked about the importance of keeping some of the provisions within the Coronavirus Act, very much in a just-in-case manner. I will speak from my perspective as Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee about three components that have caused us concern in the past and one that still does.
We very much welcome the action taken by the Health and Social Care Secretary to remove the Act’s provisions around the Mental Health Act 1983 and sectioning back in December. They had not been used and were therefore not needed. I also very much welcome his actions over the course of the last 24 hours in deciding to retire, as it were, the Care Act 2014 easements, which the Women and Equalities Committee had called for and, indeed, which I would be calling for this afternoon had he not already done it.
However, the same step has not been taken over the education easements in the Act. Too many disabled children have not received the support they need during the pandemic. These easements have not been used since July, yet the justification for keeping them, sent to me by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), is that the Secretary of State is keeping them under review in case the evidence changes. The Minister acknowledges in her letter to me, dated today, that the powers are unused and have not been used since last July. Indeed, she goes on to state that, compared with May, June and July last year, these flexibilities are much less needed. If they are unused and the evidence shows that they are less needed, why are they being retained? I am not some great conspiracy theorist; I do not think that this is an attempt by the Secretary of State for Education to keep this power indefinitely, but it is not used and it is not needed, yet it remains on the statute book. Of course, there is no ability to amend just that one section this evening.
Respectfully, I argue that the justification we have been given makes no sense, and I urge the Secretary of State for Education to think again on retaining these powers. Parents are desperately worried that children with special educational needs are not getting access to the assistance they need. They are back in school now, which I absolutely welcome, but I urge the Education Secretary to reconsider and to remove these unneeded easements.

Aaron Bell: It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). I have been privileged to serve on two Select Committees during the pandemic, the Science and Technology Committee and the Procedure Committee, both ably chaired by hon. Friends who spoke earlier in the debate. I therefore have quite a lot to try to say in these three minutes.
I have supported the Government on their measures throughout the pandemic and I will do so again, with some reservations, tonight. I said in the debate in this Chamber in September:
“By the spring, we will need a new plan, informed by the scientific evidence at the time and by what we learn over the winter, because we simply cannot continue to live like this forever.”—[Official Report, 28 September 2020; Vol. 681, c. 109.]
We cannot live in fear. Luckily the vaccine works, but even if it had not, we would still need a way out of lockdown.
We now have a new plan and, to echo my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), I think it would be churlish of me to reject it because it might not be as fast as I would like or what I think would be manageable given the data. We have heard a lot about “data, not dates”, yet there are a lot of dates in the legislation and not a lot of data. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary and the Prime Minister both describe the plans as “cautious but irreversible”, but I think there is a tension there with what we could achieve. The scientists told us in the Science and Technology Committee that they needed four weeks to assess the effects of each step, and the Government want a fifth week so that we can make preparations. I think the Government could  consider scrapping that fifth week and taking the associated political risk, not the scientific risk, on to their own broad shoulders.
I also feel that there is an overall sense of mission creep. We have protected the NHS, which is how the lockdowns were sold to us, but the sooner we have our lives back, the better. I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) that the way forward in step 4 is personal responsibility allied to the vaccine and to test and trace. I should pause to praise my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary. His belief in science and in the possibility of rapid vaccine development has been rewarded in spades, and his wisdom in ensuring that Oxford tied up with AstraZeneca is clear from the contrasting experiences we see across the channel and in other countries.
Turning to the procedural elements of the motions, I have been glad to serve under the excellent chairmanship of my fellow north Staffordshire MP, my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), but I was also glad to support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) in that Committee. It is a matter of honour for many of us that we return, as we promised, to how things were before the pandemic. There may be many things we can learn from the procedural innovations that we have seen, and I think we should have the chance to do that. I welcome what the Prime Minister said in his response to the Chair of the Committee that we will have a debate on this, but I fear that there has not been enough time for us to debate these procedural innovations. It is a matter of honour that we return as promised, and it is also a matter of honour that this House aligns what we are doing with what we are asking the country to do.

Alex Norris: This is a solemn moment. In the week when we mark the anniversary of our first lockdown and of this emergency legislation, we must start by reflecting with sadness on the loss of the lives of 125,000 of our countrymen and women: mothers, fathers, sons, daughters and friends. That is an awful lot of broken hearts, and our thoughts and prayers are with all of them.
Today, were are acting to protect the country as much as possible as we go forward, and in that spirit, we have had a really high-quality and interesting debate. I reflect particularly on the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), who talked about the disproportionate impact on black, Asian and ethnic minority individuals in our country. We should reflect on what that says about Britain. I also reflect on the contribution from the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) about some of our most vulnerable people. We must hold them very much at the forefront of our minds as we act today.
I am in the slightly iniquitous position of agreeing with, but having to disagree with, a number of my own colleagues, but I do not think that it serves me, them or anybody else well to disagree with them and not say so. I agree with the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) on hospitality,  by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on low pay and support for those who need it, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) regarding protest. I have a lot of sympathy with many of the provisions in the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), and I agree with everything my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) said about her desire to amend what is in front of us today. I also share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) that it is wrong that this is a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. I agree with all those points, but I cannot agree that the answer is to vote against these measures today. I do not think that that is the right course of action, because we would lose all these provisions. I will reflect on them shortly.
I disagree, too, with what colleagues in the Liberal Democrats have said. The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), the hon. Members for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) have completed the set today. On some points they have agreed with the proposals, on some points they have abstained and on some points they have disagreed. I do not think that that sort of going with the wind is what we need in a pandemic. We have been consistent: we support the Government on the restrictions we have needed to protect public health.
Reflecting on contributions from Conservative Members, I agree with everything the excellent Chair of the Procedure Committee, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), said regarding amendments. I slightly disagreed with the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine)—although I agree with the spirit of what he said—about being hoist by our own petard. The right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) talked about us being stuck with a take-it-or-leave-it proposition, but there is nothing inevitable about that. The Government could have brought forward amendable provisions today, and we would have been in a much better position if they had done so. I think I would have looked fondly on what the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) said, and our amendment is also sensible. We could really have improved this legislation, and I hope the Government will reflect on what it is they are recoiling from when it comes to Parliament improving their laws.
There was a strong but, I would still argue, fringe line of argument from a group of colleagues that we need fewer not greater protections for the British people. It was well represented by the hon. Members for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) and for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) and the hon. Members for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely). I believe, as I have said before, that those colleagues have been wrong at every turn and are wrong again today. It is wrong to look at the pain that this virus has caused and to continue to advocate weakening our tools to fight it.
I do not believe either that it is a question of liberty—I do not think it can be. Every one of those colleagues voted last week for draconian fetters on the right to protest.

Charles Walker: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You will be well aware that I was not able to vote in last week’s Divisions, because I am chairing the relevant Bill in Committee, so that is not a legitimate point of debate from the hon. Gentleman.

Nigel Evans: The shadow Minister will have heard the comments, and I am sure he would want to respond himself.

Alex Norris: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I am wrong there, and I would like the record corrected.
I would say that those colleagues—those who were present in previous Parliaments—also voted for the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 and for reforms to trade union rights. I also believe that most, if not all, of them intend to vote for what are pretty draconian reforms to our voting process, particularly regarding identification. So I am not here to take lectures on individual freedom.
I think this is about ideology and worldview. If someone spent the 40 years since Ronald Reagan became President telling people that the thing holding them back was Government and that the way forward was less Government, then this last year has been a problem. It has shown at home and abroad that Government do have a role in making sure that people have an income, do have a role in making sure that they have housing and do have a role in protecting their health, and that it is not always best to leave things to the market.

Graham Brady: I am listening carefully to the argument the hon. Gentleman is developing. Is he saying that there is simply no limit to how long he would be willing to have these restrictions on people’s freedoms in place, should there always be some threat of another variant of covid?

Alex Norris: I am grateful for that intervention. That is not my position and I am going to develop that argument shortly. I would hope to hear from the Minister that, particularly with these provisions lasting into October, he intends to bring them down much more quickly than that and as soon as we can. The point that the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands made about 21 June being present only in the procedural motions was a very good one.
Let me make a couple of points about the specifics and substance of the Act. It is right that the opportunity is being taken today to sunset provisions in it—certainly ones that have not been used—and we support the Government where they have chosen to do that. However, I do wish to question the Minister on the three provisions that are suspended. On sections 22 and 23, which expire tomorrow, I would like clarity that, as they have expired rather than been formally turned off, they will not be revivable and there is no intention to revive them. On section 58, in relation to transportation, storage and disposal of dead bodies, why was that only suspended? There does not seem to be a foreseeable use for that.
I also wish to query a number of powers that the Government have chosen to neither turn off nor suspend. Why is section 14, on continuing healthcare assessments, not being turned off, given that its counterpart, section 15, is? Section 37, on the temporary closure of educational institutions and childcare premises, has never been used, and I do not think its use is foreseeable. On section 50, on the power to suspend port operations, I do not think there is any anxiety about Border Force’s resourcing levels to cover our ports. Why has that not been turned off yet? On section 52, which many colleagues have raised, on events, gatherings and premises, there are surely better tools in other bits of legislation and regulations that we could use.
I hope that we will learn from this crisis. In particular, the points made by colleagues about a public inquiry are important. It would be very difficult for the Government to get independent feedback about why we have one of the worst death tolls in the world and one of the worst recessions in the world, but we simply must learn the lessons for the future, no matter how hard it is for Ministers to hear them.
I want to reflect on a couple of things that are still missing in the approach and in the road map. It is a really significant gap. For all the good news in the Budget for self-employed people, so many—possibly millions—are still ineligible for that support. Those excluded continue to receive almost nothing beyond social security—and some of them are not eligible for that because they have been saving, for example, to pay off tax liabilities. That is wrong, it has been wrong throughout, and I cannot understand why Ministers have not moved more quickly on it.
Similarly, we are letting down our nation’s carers. We clapped for them but now refuse to make a meaningful recognition of their contribution. The derisory 1% pay offer for NHS staff is a real-terms cut and completely unacceptable under these circumstances. Also we should not leave out of the conversation social care workers, working in the homes of some of our most vulnerable people, meeting the health needs of people who really need it, but putting their own at risk. What is their reward for that? A clap on a Tuesday and then a pay freeze in the Budget. That will mean that, for the 10th year in a row, their pay will be squeezed. That should be an enormous source of shame for the Government. I hope the Minister could reflect, and perhaps give us some good news on that when he stands up to speak.
To conclude, we will support this. We do not do so without reservation or with much pleasure, but it is the situation we find ourselves in today. There is nothing inevitable about it. The virus has been a problem for every country, but we have struggled particularly. So we need these measures so we can cautiously move forwards and make this lockdown our last.

Edward Argar: This House has come together once again to consider coronavirus regulations. The contrast with the previous occasions on which we did so, of course, is that today we are debating in part the road map to recovery—one that eases rather than strengthens the restrictions we face. It sets out our path to freedom. They are freedoms that none of us would have ever wished to have to curtail,  save for the gravest of circumstances, but it is true that, as a country, we have faced some very grave times indeed. It has been a long, challenging year for all of us—individuals, families, businesses—and that was brought home so poignantly on Tuesday, as we remembered those we have lost through the pandemic. We have come a very long way, but equally, we know that those dark days are not that far behind us yet, so the fact that we may cautiously begin to look to brighter days ahead is a tribute to so many.
In that vein, again, I wish to put on record my thanks to our NHS and care staff and, indeed, key workers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) did, for all they have done; and, of course, to thank the British people, whose sacrifices and solidarity have set us on this better course. As more and more of our population heed the call to be vaccinated, we are setting our country up for a safer future, too. So we have much to be optimistic about.
But colleagues will have been watching recent events on the continent with some concern. Not far from these shores, cases are rapidly on the rise. As the Prime Minister recently acknowledged, the wave sweeping through Europe has the potential to
“wash up on our shores as well”.
Equally concerning, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has alluded to on a number of occasions, are the new variants—many of them, it must be recognised, detected through world-leading British genomics capabilities— which continue to pose a threat to the progress we have made. As we debate easing restrictions here today, our friends in France, Germany, Italy, the Czech Republic and many others find themselves moving in the other direction—tightening lockdowns, extending curfews and shutting down again. That is a fate we are determined to avoid, and one I believe we will avoid if we proceed carefully and follow the cautious steps set out in our road map.
We all want to see the economic and social freedoms and activities that mean so much to us resume as swiftly as possible and, of course, to be able to see friends and family again. As the Secretary of State set out, at each step of that reopening, we are allowing four weeks to monitor the impact of the previous step and one week to ensure that we give businesses and individuals enough notice to plan for the reopening and easing. That timeframe is playing a vital part in ensuring that we are truly on a one-way route to freedom. I make no secret that this is a balancing act, with each step cautiously weighed and considered.
Much of today’s debate has understandably focused on another aspect of the response to the pandemic that we will be voting on today—the six-month review of the provisions in the Coronavirus Act 2020. We have had many passionate and thoughtful speeches. No one wishes the Act to be necessary and to be in place a day longer than is necessary—not me, not the Secretary of State, not the Prime Minister and not hon. Members in this House. Whether one disagrees or agrees with the case put by the Secretary of State—hon. Members will not be surprised to know that I agree wholeheartedly with the case he put in arguing that we should be backing the motion today—I would not for one moment impugn or question in any way the integrity, sincerity or motivation of hon. Members who, from perfectly reasonable perspectives, have set out their concerns about this.  However, these measures regrettably do remain necessary. To reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), I do not believe that there is any desire or intent within Government to in any way normalise such measures.
Let me turn to some of the key specific points raised by hon. and right hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) put the case and highlighted extremely well that, while we have made huge strides forward through vaccinations, and we have seen the death rate and hospitalisation rate come down, we are not yet out of the woods entirely. That is why we must, I believe, continue to be cautious and why the road map is necessary.
I would like to say that it was pleasure to hear from the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), but I am mindful not to mislead the House. However, I will address one substantive point he raised, when he appeared to be arguing for zero covid. I have to be clear with him, as the chief medical officer has been clear, that such an approach is neither practical nor realistic and we must, as a society, live with residual elements of covid for many years to come. That touches on risk. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) and many other colleagues talked about striking the right balance in terms of what levels of risk society is prepared to live with. The Secretary of State alluded to this in his opening remarks. It is hugely important that we weigh up the precautionary approach with the desire and need to open up our economy and society.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), the Chair of the Procedure Committee, rightly highlighted our common law approach in this country whereby things are permitted unless explicitly forbidden and said how exceptional it would be to have to change that presumption. Sadly, we have faced exceptional times and that is why these measures have been necessary, but they are not measures that any of us would choose to introduce were we not faced with such a grave situation.
Hon. Members talked about the importance of clear comms, building trust and the right messaging. That is absolutely right. It is hugely important that we set the right expectations and that we are clear with the public about how the vaccine is allowing us to move out of lockdown, but also about the challenges still posed. I have to say I was a little surprised to be lectured by the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), on so-called fake news. The irony of Liberal Democrats lecturing the House on so-called fake news will not be lost on hon. Members.
Let me move on to some very serious points as I conclude. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) asked why schedule 22 was necessary. The reality is that, while the 1984 Act gives a considerable number of powers, some elements of critical infrastructure would not be able to be closed, even in the event of an outbreak with a dangerous new variant, under that Act. That is one power that was lacking there that the Secretary of State rightly—I share his view—believes may be necessary, although hopefully it will not be necessary, in that context.
I will make two points briefly in the minute I have remaining. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been very clear that we have set out the intention to expire around 25% of the non-devolved powers under this Act. If it was possible to do so without incurring that risk and to be ready for all eventualities, I know that he would not wish to see this Act coming before us today for renewal, but it is. It is necessary and, sadly, is going to be necessary for a few more months.
The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), talked about the right to protest—I will try to answer this very quickly—and asked what the guidance is likely to include. That essentially is about things such as the need for a formal organiser, for example, and a risk assessment to take place—that is what that is referring to. I commend these motions to the House.
The Deputy Speaker put the Question (Order, this day).
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps) (England) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 364), dated 22 March 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22 March, be approved.
The Deputy Speaker then put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Order, this day).

CORONAVIRUS ACT 2020 (REVIEW OF TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (NO.2)

Motion made, and Question put,
That the temporary provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 should not yet expire.—(Matt Hancock.)

The House divided: Ayes 484, Noes 76.
Question accordingly agreed to.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Coronavirus Act 2020  (One-year status report)

Resolved,
That this House has considered the one-year report on the status on the non-devolved provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020.—(Matt Hancock.)

Proceedings during the Pandemic (No. 6)

Resolved,
That the Order of 2 June 2020 (Proceedings during the pandemic (No. 2)), as amended on 1 July and 22 October 2020, the Order of 4 June 2020 (Virtual participation in proceedings during the pandemic), as amended on 1 July, 2 September, 22 October and 30 December 2020, the Order of 3 November 2020 (Proxy voting during the pandemic (No. 2)) and the Order of 25 February (Sittings in Westminster Hall during the pandemic) shall have effect until 21 June.—(Matt Hancock.)

Nigel Evans: I wish all Members a very good and peaceful Easter, as well as all the staff who have worked here and looked after us during this particularly stressful period.

Jessica Morden: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance on a matter of correcting the record? Earlier today, during the urgent question on steel and the situation at Liberty asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), the Business Secretary said that the closure of SSI happened before 2010, but that is not correct.
If the Secretary of State does not know, the plant was purchased by SSI in February 2011 but closed in October 2015, after David Cameron refused to intervene. How might we get the Business Secretary to correct the record, to reassure Liberty Steel workers—not least those in Hartlepool pipe mills, who remember the fate of the Teesside steelworkers at SSI—that he will not abandon steel? It is very telling that the Government do not know or understand their own record of inaction on steel.

Nigel Evans: I thank the hon. Lady for advance notice of her point of order. As she knows, the Chair is not responsible for the content of any contribution from a Minister. Having said that, Mr Speaker has made it absolutely clear that where a Minister knows that they have inadvertently misled the House or there is an inaccuracy, they should correct the record as quickly as possible.

Petition - Vaccination of school staff

Fleur Anderson: I rise in the context of the Minister having just said in the covid debate that we are not yet out of the woods. I present this petition on  behalf of the residents of Putney about the vaccination of school staff, alongside an online petition on the same topic, which has been signed by more than 250 teachers, parents and students.
Students have lost so much teaching time and we should do everything we can to keep schools open. Other countries have given their school staff priority for the vaccine and so should we. A major factor in the need to close schools has been staff shortages due to teachers themselves or other teachers being covid-positive, as social distancing is very difficult in schools. To ensure that schools can stay open rather than close because of staff shortages, to protect shielding parents and so that teachers and school staff are safer doing their jobs, it is crucial that teachers are prioritised for vaccines when vaccine supply allows. The residents of Putney, Roehampton and Southfields petition the Government urgently to prioritise vaccinating teachers and all school staff.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Putney,
Declares that those working in schools are extremely vulnerable to the spread of coronavirus; further that a major factor in the need to close schools has been the failure to put in place measures to reduce the risks which school staff are subjected to; further that it is crucial that teachers are prioritised for vaccines to ensure that schools can stay open rather than close because of staff shortages, and so that teachers and school staff are safer doing their jobs.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to urgently prioritise vaccinating teachers and school staff.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002655]

Conflict in Tigray Region of Ethiopia

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(James Morris.)

Helen Hayes: I am very pleased to have this opportunity to raise the very important issue of the conflict in Tigray. It is the first time the House has had an opportunity to debate the conflict, which has, since last November, devastated Tigray, the mountainous region in the north of Ethiopia. I have given the Minister’s office advance sight of the questions I will be asking him at the end of my speech, and there are many in the UK and beyond who will be listening very carefully to what he has to say.
The conflict started in retaliation to an attack on the northern command by the Tigray People’s Liberation Front. The Ethiopian federal Government cut off all links into the region, closed roads, shut down communications and sent their troops to surround Mekelle. We know that in addition to Ethiopian armed forces, Eritrean forces and Amharan militias are also now present in Tigray. Since November, more than 60,000 Tigrayan people have fled into refugee camps in Sudan—some are reported to have had their exit routes blocked by Ethiopian and Eritrean forces; about 1 million people—some sources put the figure higher—have been internally displaced; and 4.5 million people have become food-insecure. Crops have been destroyed, livestock have been killed and agriculture has been disrupted. Tigray is an area of chronic food insecurity. It is the scene of the devastating 1984-85 famine, so deliberately cutting it off from food supplies and markets, as the Ethiopian Government are alleged to have done, means that people will starve.
Up to 80% of the region is still inaccessible. Some of Tigray’s, and the world’s, most precious cultural heritage sites have been destroyed and priceless treasures looted. Some 70% of health facilities are reported to have been looted or vandalised by Ethiopian and Eritrean Government forces, including, very recently, the only specialist clinic providing care to rape victims in Mekelle. Schools have been taken out of commission—they are being used for housing troops or displaced people. Two refugee camps, at Hitsats and Shimelba, have been razed to the ground. The whereabouts of 20,000 of the refugees they sheltered is still unknown. An estimated 50,000 civilians have been killed, and there is evidence that children have been targeted, and 10,000 women have been raped. Let that sink in: 10,000 women have been raped. The most recent terrible update from the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported continuing human rights abuses, severe malnutrition among young children and a food security situation described as “catastrophic”. In considering this catalogue of destruction, I want to focus on three points. The first is the nature of the conflict. The second is the use of rape as a weapon of war. The third is the lack of action by the international community.
First, on the nature of the conflict, the Ethiopian Government originally said that the attack on Tigray was a “law and order operation” to deal with a long-running dispute, but multiple subsequent reports indicate a sustained and brutal assault that has included aerial bombardment and ground shelling of settlements, with the deliberate   targeting of civilians. This is not a little local difficulty in Ethiopia’s back yard; it risks a much wider destabilisation and escalation of conflict throughout the horn of Africa. Early information trickling out through the refugee camps in Sudan told, right from the start, of massacres of civilians. At Mai Kadra, where responsibility is hotly contested, witnesses have spoken of both Ethiopian Government and Tigrayan militia involvement. Most notably last November, there was a brutal massacre at Axum, one of the holiest Christian sites in Ethiopia. A total of 750 people are thought to have been killed. The stories circulating last year on social media were confirmed last month by Amnesty International in a report that documents aerial bombardment by Ethiopians, followed by systematic killing by Eritrean soldiers going door to door through the town. They particularly targeted young men and boys, prevented people from burying the dead and then looted the town of everything of value, including food. Some commentators have said that food is being used as a weapon of war.
In January, over 40 people were massacred at Debre Abbay, 300 people were killed in the attack on the Hitsats refugee camp—300 people—and at a village near Samre 500 buildings were set on fire and 60 people are thought to have been killed. At a village called Bora an estimated 100 people were murdered. Emaciated and starving people displaced by the violence are pouring into overcrowded towns. The Norwegian Refugee Council says that 37,000 people have recently arrived at Sheraro, a town in north-western Tigray, where food, water and medicine are running out fast.
“The situation in Sheraro is beyond dire”,
the NRC chief, Jan Egeland, has warned. There are many parts of Tigray, particularly rural areas, where there is no communication and there are grave fears about the fate of local people in terms of violence and access to food, medicine and essential services.
What is clear from both social media and independent reporting is that civilians have been targeted because of their ethnicity—because they are Tigrayan. Footage has been circulating of men in Ethiopian military uniforms speaking in Amharic and shouting abuse at groups of boys while shooting them and throwing their bodies over a cliff. Along with this has been the vandalising of symbols of Tigrayan culture, most notably Debre Damo monastery and the al-Nejashi mosque, one of the oldest in Africa. As the International Development Committee heard last week, economic and service infrastructure has been damaged, with factories looted and vandalised and banks closed, making it hard for humanitarian agencies to operate. The Committee also heard about the destruction of health facilities, the result of systematic looting and vandalism by Eritrean and Ethiopian forces.
Secondly, I want to talk about the widespread use of rape and sexual violence. It has been estimated that 10,000 women in Tigray have been raped, and recent reports on Channel 4, the BBC and CNN have all documented the horrific nature of the attacks, including kidnapping, imprisonment, rape and mutilation. On Monday this week, an unprecedented letter signed by 12 leading figures in the international community called for the sexual violence to stop. They said there is only one medical facility in the whole region fully equipped to meet the survivors’ needs.
What especially stands out are the ferocity of the attacks, which is evident from reports and photographs of injuries to women, including the mutilation of women’s genitals, and the targeting of women because they are Tigrayan. The rapists have talked of “Amharanising” the women and purifying their blood. The use of rape as a weapon of war is always abhorrent and heinous, but for soldiers to claim to be purifying or cleansing women by raping them makes this violence look genocidal. What also stands out is the impunity. There is no indication that either the Ethiopian or Eritrean Governments are taking any steps whatsoever to rein in their troops. Those responsible for the sexual violence inflict it with complete impunity. On Tuesday, the Ethiopian Government admitted there had been sexual assaults on women in Tigray, but sought to justify it as a consequence of the conflict.
In 2008, the UN Security Council unanimously approved resolution 1820, which
“Demands the immediate and complete cessation by all parties to armed conflict of all acts of sexual violence against civilians”,
and says they should
“immediately take appropriate measures to protect civilians, including women and girls, from all forms of sexual violence, which could include…enforcing appropriate military disciplinary measures and upholding the principle of command responsibility”.
It goes on to say that
“rape and other forms of sexual violence can constitute a war crime, a crime against humanity, or a constitutive act with respect to genocide”.
This is tough and unequivocal language.
The UK has the privilege of being a permanent member of the UN Security Council and has a responsibility to ensure that this resolution is enforced. It was Lord Hague of Richmond, then the Foreign Secretary, who campaigned alongside Angelina Jolie against the use of sexual violence in war, and he received an award for his efforts from the then US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Now is the time for the Conservative Government to prove that that was more than a publicity stunt.
That brings me to my third and final point, which is the lack of response from the international community. The European Union, Germany and the United States have paused their aid to Ethiopia, and the US Administration last week sent the respected Senator Coons of Delaware to Addis Ababa. Ireland has led moves for the EU to apply targeted sanctions. However, the rest of the world has done little more than talk, and the Governments of Ethiopia and Eritrea have turned a deaf ear. What is needed is not more words, but action, so I am asking the Minister for action on the following points. The Ethiopia country programme is the biggest UK bilateral aid programme, as the Minister stressed at the International Development Committee last week. Will Her Majesty’s Government align their policies with the UK’s international partners, the US, the EU and Germany, and pause the parts of their aid programme that are going to the Ethiopian Government?
Will Her Majesty’s Government support the moves to set up an independent UN investigation into the massacres of civilians in Tigray, including those at Mai Kadra, Axum and Samre, and the targeting of refugee camps, including those at Hitsats and Shimelba? Will they do this urgently before evidence, including of survivors at massacre sites and rape victims from hospitals in Mekelle, is removed or destroyed?
Will the Government introduce targeted sanctions against those in Ethiopia and Eritrea responsible for the atrocities in Tigray, following the approach taken by the European Union? Will they continue to ensure that the UN Security Council remains actively engaged in ending the war in Tigray and the abuses associated with it? Will they press for the immediate withdrawal of Eritrean troops, and seek to ensure that there is an inclusive national dialogue in the country, as many Tigrayans have been calling for, to secure a lasting peace?
Will the Government specifically ensure that evidence of the widespread use of rape and sexual violence in the Tigray conflict is collated and that the perpetrators are brought to justice in line with UN Security Council resolution 1820? It is wholly unacceptable that soldiers from the Ethiopian and Eritrean armies should be able to rape women with impunity. Equally, it is unacceptable that their commanders-in-chief should permit their forces to use rape as a weapon of war or fail to bring to justice those under their command who commit such crimes.
Will the Government take steps to support publicly the US Administration’s initiatives to ensure that immediate and full access is provided to humanitarian agencies in Tigray, and that unfettered access will be provided for local and international journalists without repercussions for their translators and fixers?
The Foreign Secretary has spoken of his experience of taking war criminals to the International Criminal Court in the Hague. Will the Minister therefore press him to take initial steps, through the UN Security Council, to bring prosecutions against those whom the evidence points to being responsible for war crimes in Tigray, including the use of rape?
The effects of this war will continue long after the guns have fallen silent. There will be empty spaces where civilian populations were murdered, and there will be a cohort of children growing up who are the result of the rape of their mothers. This further illustrates why it is absolutely the wrong time for the UK Government to be reneging on their promise to maintain UK aid spending at 0.7% of gross national income. I hope the Minister will reflect further on that disastrous decision.
Even now, the UK Government can help avert yet more destruction in Tigray and provide justice for the survivors of the massacres and for the women who have been raped. It will, however, take much more than words; it will take action, and that is what I, and many others, hope the Minister will commit to tonight.

James Cleverly: I thank the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for securing the debate this evening. Normally, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) would have responded, but, unfortunately, he is travelling. I know that he takes the issues that she has raised very seriously, and I shall run through some of the points that he would have made had he been able to be here.
The crisis in Tigray is of grave concern both to Her Majesty’s Government and, indeed, to Members of this House. More than four months on from the start of the  conflict, much of Tigray remains incredibly dangerous both for the people who live there and for the humanitarian workers trying to deliver badly needed support, and, as the hon. Lady set out in her speech, the impact on civilians is devastating. Sadly, we are aware that at least five workers—Ethiopian staff working for UK-funded non-governmental organisations—have tragically been killed in this conflict. I pay tribute to them here today for their courage, for their service and, ultimately, for their sacrifice. The targeting of humanitarians is utterly unacceptable.
The conflict has caused the collapse of essential and basic services: health, nutrition, water and sanitation. Life-saving maternal healthcare services and vaccines cannot be delivered, thereby endangering the lives of newborn children and their mothers. Huge numbers of people, likely more than half a million, are in areas beyond the reach of aid agencies. Across the region, as the hon. Lady said, 4.5 million people are now in need of life-saving humanitarian aid. The United Nations assesses that the overall humanitarian response remains “deeply inadequate” compared with the needs that have been assessed on the ground, and the situation is indeed grave.
We have received ongoing reports of egregious human rights violations since the conflict started and, as has been outlined, we are seeing and hearing increasingly harrowing stories, on an almost daily basis, of widespread murder and rape. Armed actors are subjecting civilians to appalling abuses and systematic campaigns of looting, largely with impunity. Eritrea’s role in this conflict is particularly concerning. As such, the UK has called on it to leave Ethiopia immediately. There are numerous reports of atrocities involving Eritrean forces, and their presence is fuelling insecurity.
Since the start of the conflict in November, the UK has consistently called for unhindered and comprehensive access for relief agencies and journalists. One of the greatest defences against the impunity that the hon. Lady has highlighted is the work of the media. We have been clear that the protection of civilians must be a priority, and we have pressed for investigations into the human rights abuses that have been highlighted, as well as for the withdrawal of Eritrean forces. There can be no military solution to the problems in Tigray, and we have urged all parties to seek an inclusive political settlement and to restore security and stability.
In January this year, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary travelled to Ethiopia and visited a humanitarian logistics hub in Gondar, run by the World Food Programme. He heard first hand from our agency partners about the difficulties faced in delivering life-saving assistance. He also met Prime Minister Abiy, the President and the Deputy Prime Minister. He emphasised to them the need for immediate humanitarian access, and made clear the UK’s serious concerns about human rights violations, media freedom and political freedom.
The Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Africa have also raised the situation with their counterparts across the continent and internationally. As the hon. Lady suggested, that includes recent conversations with the United States Secretary of State Blinken. I have   raised these issues with my counterparts in the Gulf, and the UK has been active in discussions at the United Nations Security Council. Most recently, on 11 March, the Minister for South Asia and the Commonwealth called again for urgent action to be taken to avert a humanitarian catastrophe, during a discussion on food insecurity and conflict in the other place.
The UK has been a generous supporter of humanitarian activities. On top of more than £100 million of humanitarian assistance to Ethiopia this financial year, an additional £15.4 million has been provided specifically for this crisis response. Our embassy in Addis Ababa has been working tirelessly and in challenging circumstances to secure humanitarian access, and to press for investigations into the human rights abuses and violations that the hon. Lady outlined in her speech.
A team of UK officials from the embassy travelled to Mekelle, Tigray’s principal city, on 4 and 5 March. United Nations and NGO staff were open about the complexities of operating in this environment and the extent of civilian suffering. At a site for displaced persons, our staff heard harrowing accounts of truly horrendous abuses. They saw a relief effort hamstrung by confused Government systems struggling to keep pace with the needs of the people. It is clear that obstacles to access have weakened the overall response to this devastating situation.
One positive development has been the recent announcement from the Government of Ethiopia on access and their commitment to move to a system of access notification. Under that approach, responding organisations no longer have to wait for approval from Ethiopian authorities to enter Tigray. The UK is working with the United Nations and others to assess whether changes introduced by the authorities result in a demonstrable and positive improvement on the ground. We can also cautiously welcome the improved access for the media in Tigray.
The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) will be interested to know, as he has raised this privately with me, that we also support the work of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Its work is important, and we are glad to see that those staff are planning a joint mission with the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission.
However, it is clear that media workers remain persecuted and at risk of detention. We are also concerned that the proposed joint human rights investigation will not be seen as impartial by the victims of the conflict. The crisis in Tigray comes as Ethiopia already faces huge humanitarian, economic and political pressures. In 2021, relief agencies will assist nearly 18 million people across the country. Covid-19, climate events and devastating locust invasions have already put paid to prosperity in the region. Ethnic violence has increased in many regions and may rise further ahead of the planned elections in June this year. The stakes are very high, and this coming year will need concerted action by the international system and a strong and well co-ordinated United Nations.
Let me conclude by reassuring the House that the United Kingdom will continue to engage comprehensively with Ethiopia and to lead co-ordination with international partners in pressing for a political solution to this conflict that brings about an end to the violence. We will also ensure that investigations into atrocities are  robust, unbiased, credible and trusted by the people of Tigray themselves, so that those committing abuses do not evade justice. In the meantime, it is our absolute priority to make sure that humanitarian support continues to reach those in desperate need.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.

Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote

The following is the list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy:

  

  Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
  Robbie Moore


  Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
  Ian Paisley


  Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
  Ben Everitt


  Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Marsha De Cordova (Battersea)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
  Ian Paisley


  Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
  Ben Lake


  Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
  Stuart Andrew


  Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
  Ian Paisley


  John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
  Ben Lake


  Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  John Howell (Henley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
  Mr William Wragg


  Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
  Ian Paisley


  Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
  Robbie Moore


  Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karl McCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West)
  Owen Thompson


  Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
  Robbie Moore


  Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
  Antony Higginbotham


  Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
  Ian Paisley


  Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
  Ben Lake


  Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
  Mark Harper


  Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
  Ian Paisley


  Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
  Mr William Wragg


  Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
  Robbie Moore


  Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
  Ben Lake


  Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
  Ian Paisley


  Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell


  Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
  Sir Alan Campbell